SB 828 creates a statutory pathway for Maryland to treat certain federal payments as “delinquent” and to use state collection powers to recover those funds. The bill authorizes the Board of Public Works (BPW) to declare the federal government delinquent when it “does not comply with court decisions upholding congressionally approved spending,” refers those debts to the Department of Budget and Management’s Central Collection Unit (CCU), and permits the CCU to collect up to the total amount owed, place liens on federal property in the State, and ask the Comptroller to withhold State payments to the federal government.
The measure also adds a reservation of jurisdiction over federal land in Maryland while a delinquency determination is in effect and reinforces existing CCU authorities (including fee assessments and collection procedures). For state finance officers, compliance counsel, and agencies that interact with federal grants and property, the bill is significant: it formalizes an aggressive, state-level enforcement toolkit against the federal government that raises immediate legal and operational questions about enforceability, intergovernmental conflict, and the practical reach of traditional collection remedies when the debtor is the United States.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill lets the Board of Public Works declare the federal government delinquent for failing to comply with certain court orders, refers those sums to the Central Collection Unit, and authorizes the CCU to collect up to the full delinquent amount, place liens on federal property located in Maryland, and direct the Comptroller to withhold State payments to the federal government.
Who It Affects
Affected parties include the Board of Public Works, the Department of Budget and Management’s Central Collection Unit, the Comptroller’s office, the Attorney General’s office (which provides counsel and assigns assistants to the CCU), state agencies that interact with federal grants or make payments to federal entities, and federal property-holding agencies present in Maryland.
Why It Matters
SB 828 converts political or judicial disputes over federal spending into a statutory collection process at the state level — using tools (liens, withholding, collection fees) states normally deploy against private debtors. That shift could create new legal confrontations with the federal government and change how Maryland negotiates compliance with federally funded programs.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 828 stitches together several changes to Maryland law to create a multi-step enforcement path against the federal government for a narrow category of defaults. First, the Board of Public Works gets the power to make a formal determination — by majority vote — that the federal government is delinquent when it ‘‘does not comply with court decisions upholding congressionally approved spending.’’ Once BPW makes that determination, the statute requires referral of the delinquent sums to the Central Collection Unit in the Department of Budget and Management.
The Central Collection Unit’s existing collection authorities are expanded specifically for these federal debts. The CCU may pursue collection actions and, explicitly, may collect up to the total amount the federal government owes to the State.
The bill adds explicit authority for the CCU, in consultation with the Attorney General, to place liens on federal property located in Maryland and to instruct the Comptroller to withhold State payments to the federal government as a collection lever.Practically, the bill preserves the CCU’s fee and administrative mechanisms (including assessment of collection fees and withholding amounts sufficient to cover costs) and codifies staffing: assistant Attorneys General assigned full time to the CCU. It also creates a statutory reservation of jurisdiction over federal land in Maryland while such a delinquency determination exists — a jurisdictional tool intended to give the State more reach on federal-held or leased property.
Finally, the Comptroller receives explicit authority to withhold State payments to the federal government when the CCU refers delinquent federal funds, turning a traditional state cash-management instrument into a potential enforcement device against the federal government.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The Board of Public Works may, by majority vote, declare the federal government delinquent if it ‘‘does not comply with court decisions upholding congressionally approved spending.’’, Delinquent federal funds so determined must be referred to the Central Collection Unit of the Department of Budget and Management for collection.
The Central Collection Unit may collect delinquent federal funds up to the total amount owed and may use existing fee authorities to recover administrative and collection costs.
After BPW’s determination and in consultation with the Attorney General, the CCU may place liens on federal property located in Maryland and direct the Comptroller to withhold State payments to the federal government.
The State expressly reserves jurisdiction over federal land in Maryland while a delinquency determination under the statute is in effect, enabling concurrent jurisdiction agreements with the United States.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Reservation of jurisdiction tied to delinquent federal funds
The bill amends the State’s general provisions to add §6–204 and to modify §6–202 so that the State may reserve jurisdiction over federal land when federal funds are determined delinquent under the new enforcement mechanism. In practice this authorizes the Governor to negotiate concurrent jurisdiction agreements with the United States over federal land in Maryland tied to a BPW delinquency determination. That provision creates a jurisdictional lever the State can use while pursuing collections, but it depends on obtaining federal consent for concurrent jurisdiction arrangements.
CCU authority to collect delinquent federal funds
This addition puts federal debts squarely within the CCU’s remit for a specific class of debts: those referred under §10–208. It caps the CCU’s recovery at the total amount owed, signaling the legislature’s intent that the unit pursue full recovery rather than a limited offset. The provision integrates federal-debt collection into existing state debt procedures, meaning the CCU will use its normal collection playbook unless other statutory limits or federal law constrain action.
Collection tools: liens, litigation, and directives to the Comptroller
The bill expands the list of collection powers available to the CCU when the BPW has made a delinquency finding: collect the funds, place liens on federal property in Maryland, and direct the Comptroller to withhold payments to the federal government. The expansion is conditional on BPW’s determination and consultation with the Attorney General, which inserts a political-plus-legal gate before aggressive remedies are used. These remedies are mechanically straightforward at the state level but raise immediate enforceability questions when the debtor is the United States.
Trigger: BPW determination that federal government is delinquent
Section 10–208 defines the trigger: BPW may find the federal government delinquent if it ‘‘does not comply with court decisions upholding congressionally approved spending.’’ The statute requires referral of delinquent funds to the CCU. The text does not elaborate procedural requirements for BPW’s finding (notice, hearings, standards of proof), so the determination process is left to the Board’s rules and practice, subject to general administrative law constraints.
Comptroller withholding authority
This newly added provision authorizes the Comptroller to withhold State payments to the federal government when the CCU refers delinquent federal funds under §3–304. The provision transforms one of the State’s cash-management powers into a collection tool against federal entities. Because the category of State-to-federal payments is limited in practice, the provision’s immediate practical reach will depend on identifying payments the State actually makes to federal entities that the Comptroller can legally withhold.
Attorney General support for CCU
The existing assignment provision is retained and emphasized: the Attorney General must assign at least one assistant attorney general to the CCU, and those assistants must devote full time to CCU duties. The change underscores that the statute anticipates litigation and complex legal work when pursuing federal collections, requiring dedicated in-house counsel for the unit.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Finance across all five countries.
Explore Finance in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Maryland State agencies that are owed federal funds: The bill gives them an institutional pathway to try to recover funds or force compliance when federal payments or obligations tied to court-ordered spending are withheld or violated.
- Board of Public Works: BPW gains a formal enforcement role and leverage by initiating referrals that unlock CCU collection tools and by making the political determination necessary to trigger state action.
- Central Collection Unit and Department of Budget and Management: The CCU receives an expanded mandate and potential fee revenue for collection work, increasing its operational scope and strategic importance.
Who Bears the Cost
- Comptroller’s office: The Comptroller must administer withholding instructions and may need to develop new procedures and legal defenses for withholding State payments directed at federal entities, imposing administrative and potential litigation costs.
- Attorney General’s Office and Maryland courts: The AG must provide counsel and likely litigate complex constitutional and sovereign-immunity issues, requiring staff time and litigation budgets; courts may see novel suits testing state authority against the federal government.
- State agencies and service recipients: If collection actions lead to withheld federal reimbursements or disruption of federal-state program flows, agencies and the residents they serve could face interrupted services while disputes are litigated or negotiated.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill confronts a core dilemma: Maryland can and may need tools to enforce congressionally authorized federal spending that benefits the State, but the constitutional structure that protects federal supremacy and sovereign immunity means the State’s most familiar collection tools may be legally ineffective or politically costly — so the statute trades immediacy of enforcement for the likelihood of expensive, uncertain litigation and possible intergovernmental retaliation.
SB 828 creates a statutory enforcement framework that looks operational on paper but collides with constitutional and practical limits in application. The most immediate legal question is enforceability: federal sovereign immunity and Supremacy Clause doctrines traditionally protect federal property and funds from state-imposed liens, seizures, or offsets.
Placing liens on federal property or withholding payments from the federal government will likely provoke litigation over whether a State can use ordinary debt-collection remedies against the United States. Those suits will be complex, protracted, and costly for the State, with an uncertain outcome.
Operational uncertainties also matter. The statute ties remedial steps to a BPW determination that the federal government ‘‘does not comply with court decisions upholding congressionally approved spending,’’ but it does not define which courts, what standard BPW must apply, or what due process (notice, opportunity to be heard, evidentiary standard) must precede a finding.
The universe of State payments to the federal government that the Comptroller can legally withhold is narrow in practice, so the withhold authority may offer limited leverage absent clear categories of State-to-federal transfers. Finally, the bill imposes potential fiscal and reputational risks: even successful collection could yield less than expected after litigation and could trigger federal responses that disrupt federal-state cooperation or funding flows.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.