Maryland Lawmakers Debate Youth Charging Reform Act

Bill to keep more juvenile offenders in the juvenile system faces resistance from law enforcement

Feb. 4, 2026 at 10:55pm

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

High-ranking state leaders in Maryland are supporting legislation known as the Youth Charging Reform Act that would keep youths charged with certain crimes in the juvenile justice system rather than automatically charging them as adults. However, the bill is facing resistance from law enforcement groups who argue the legislation is idealistic and a potential threat to public safety.

Why it matters

The debate over the Youth Charging Reform Act highlights the ongoing tension in Maryland between rehabilitation-focused juvenile justice reforms and public safety concerns from law enforcement. The outcome of this legislation could have significant implications for how the state handles juvenile offenders going forward.

The details

The Youth Charging Reform Act, introduced as House Bill 409 and Senate Bill 323, would repeal 11 of the 33 crimes that currently automatically send juvenile offenders into the adult criminal justice system. Instead, a judge would review each case individually and determine the appropriate jurisdiction. Supporters of the bill, including the state Attorney General and the acting Juvenile Services Secretary, argue it would prioritize rehabilitation over punishment. However, opponents like the Maryland State's Attorneys' Association and the Maryland Chiefs of Police Association believe the legislation is unrealistic and could threaten public safety.

  • The Youth Charging Reform Act was introduced in the Maryland General Assembly in early 2026.
  • A hearing on the bill was held on February 5, 2026 in the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee.

The players

Will Smith

The sponsor of the Youth Charging Reform Act and chairman of the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee.

Betsy Fox Tolentino

The acting secretary of the Maryland Department of Juvenile Services, who supports the legislation.

Anthony Brown

The Maryland Attorney General, who testified in support of the bill and its focus on rehabilitation over punishment.

Pam Chung

The chief of the juvenile division at the Baltimore City State's Attorney's Office, who opposes the bill based on concerns about the Department of Juvenile Services' ability to handle more youth offenders.

Maryland State's Attorneys' Association

A law enforcement group that opposes the Youth Charging Reform Act.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“At its core, this bill is about public safety and fairness and making decisions at the right time, by the right people, using the right information.”

— Will Smith, State Senator and bill sponsor

“Youth can wait 150 days for their transfer hearing, and sometimes, up to two years.”

— Betsy Fox Tolentino, Acting Secretary, Maryland Department of Juvenile Services

“We support the bill, prioritize in rehabilitation over punishment, and providing children with the appropriate opportunities for treatment and reform is the right approach for Maryland.”

— Anthony Brown, Maryland Attorney General

“The Department of Juvenile Services fails to value the youth they serve, fails to value the delivery of meaningful services and support, fails to demonstrate responsibility for youth in their care and fails to engage in interagency coordination. DJS is unable to meet the needs of youth currently under their supervision. The agency is unable to support the idealism behind this bill.”

— Pam Chung, Chief of Juvenile Division, Baltimore City State's Attorney's Office

What’s next

The Maryland General Assembly will continue to debate the Youth Charging Reform Act in the coming weeks, with a final vote expected before the legislative session ends in April 2026.

The takeaway

The debate over the Youth Charging Reform Act in Maryland highlights the ongoing tension between juvenile justice reform efforts focused on rehabilitation and the public safety concerns of law enforcement. The outcome of this legislation could have significant implications for how the state handles juvenile offenders in the future.