Can a Maryland bill be struck down just because its title describes the opposite of what the bill's text actually does?

Plain-English summary

Governor Harry Hughes asked the Attorney General to review House Bill 1541, which would have amended the definition of "wages" for Maryland unemployment insurance tax purposes to track a recent change in federal law, so that employers would owe less federal unemployment tax. The bill's actual text would have redefined "wages" to include most employer-paid sickness and accident disability payments, excluding only payments made under a workers' compensation law. But the bill's title said exactly the opposite: it described the bill as including in wages only those disability payments made under a workers' compensation law. The opinion found this discrepancy so severe, saying what the bill excluded instead of what it included, that the title failed to give the legislature and the public fair notice of the bill's real effect, and it declined to approve the bill for constitutionality on that basis. The opinion did suggest that the underlying policy could still be enacted through a corrected emergency bill at the next legislative session, timed to take effect before the federal change kicked in on January 1, 1985.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1984. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Can a Maryland bill be struck down just because its title describes the opposite of what the bill's text actually does?
According to this 1984 opinion, yes, when the gap between the title and the actual scope of the bill is severe enough. The Attorney General declined to approve House Bill 1541 because its title said the bill would include certain disability payments as taxable wages, while the operative text of the bill excluded those very payments.

What does the Maryland Constitution require of a bill's title?
The opinion explained that Article III, Section 29 of the Maryland Constitution requires every law to "embrace but one subject," described in its title, so that the General Assembly and the public are fairly advised of what a pending bill actually does. A title cannot be misleading, and it cannot apparently limit a bill to a narrower scope than the bill's body actually covers.

Why was Maryland trying to change its definition of "wages" for unemployment tax purposes at all?
The opinion noted that a recent amendment to the Federal Unemployment Insurance Tax Act would treat most employer-paid sickness and accident disability payments as wages starting January 1, 1985, and that conforming Maryland's own definition to the federal change, though not federally required, would substantially reduce employers' federal unemployment tax liability.

Background and statutory framework

House Bill 1541 would have amended the definition of "wages" in Article 95A, §20(n) of the Maryland Code, which in turn affects the state unemployment tax employers pay under Article 95A, §8 and the weekly benefit amounts employees can draw under Article 95A, §3(b). The proposed change tracked a recent amendment to 26 U.S.C. §3306(b)(2)(A) by Pub. Law No. 98-21, 97 Stat. 123, 125 (1983), which would treat most employer-paid sickness and accident disability payments as wages for federal unemployment tax purposes beginning January 1, 1985. The opinion measured the bill's title against Article III, Section 29 of the Maryland Constitution and Court of Appeals case law holding that a title must fairly describe a bill's real subject and must not be misleading or narrower than the bill's actual scope.

Citations

Statutes:

• Article 95A, §20(n) of the Maryland Code (definition of "wages" for unemployment insurance purposes)
• Article 95A, §8 of the Maryland Code (state unemployment tax paid by employers)
• Article 95A, §3(b) of the Maryland Code (calculation of an employee's weekly benefit amount)
• 26 U.S.C. §3306(b)(2)(A) (federal definition of wages for unemployment tax purposes, as amended)
• Pub. Law No. 98-21, 97 Stat. 123, 125 (1983) (federal amendment treating certain disability payments as wages)
• Article III, Section 29 of the Maryland Constitution (requires a bill's subject to be described in its title)

Cases:

• Kelly v. State, 139 Md. 204 (1921) (purpose of the title requirement is to fairly advise the legislature and public of a bill's real nature)
• Baltimore v. Deegan, 163 Md. 234 (1932) (a good bill title must not be misleading)
• State v. King, 124 Md. 471 (1914) (a title must not apparently limit an enactment to a narrower scope than the bill's body embraces)

Source

• Landing page: https://oag.maryland.gov/resources-info/Pages/attorney-general%E2%80%99s-opinions.aspx
• Original PDF: https://oag.maryland.gov/resources-info/Documents/pdfs/Opinions/1984/Volume69_1984.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain, the linked PDF is authoritative.

Statutes-Constitutional Law-Title Of Bill-Significant Discrepancy Between Title Description And Actual Scope Of Bill Renders Title Misleading And Bill Unconstitutional.

May 25, 1984

The Honorable Harry Hughes
Governor

We have reviewed House Bill 1541 (Unemployment Insurance-Taxable Wages) for constitutionality and legal sufficiency. Unfortunately, because of a serious defect in its title, we are unable to approve this bill.

I
House Bill 1541 And Its Title

House Bill 1541 was introduced to amend the statutory definition of "wages" in Article 95A, §20(n) of the Maryland Code. The primary purpose of the bill was to modify the State unemployment tax required to be paid by employers under Article 95A, §8.

The Federal Unemployment Insurance Tax Act was recently amended to provide that, effective January 1, 1985, payments made under an employer's plan for sickness or accident disability benefits, other than "payments which are received under a workm[e]n's compensation law", are to be considered wages for purposes of federal unemployment insurance tax. 26 U.S.C. §3306(b)(2)(A), as amended by Pub. Law No. 98-21, 97 Stat. 123, 125 (1983). Article 95A, §20(n)(2) currently defines "wages" to exclude, among other types of employers' benefit plan payments, all sickness and accident disability payments.

House Bill 1541 would amend Article 95A, §20(n)(2), effective January 1, 1985, to add the following:

"If payments are made to an employee or an employee's dependents for sickness or accident disability, this paragraph (2) excludes from 'wages' only payments that are received under a workmen's compensation law[.]" (Emphasis added.)

This change, which substantially tracks the language of the federal law, would effectively modify the term "wages" to include sickness and accident disability payments made by an employer, except those made under a worker's compensation law. Although this change in State law is not mandated by federal law, the net effect of such a conforming change would be to greatly reduce an employer's federal tax liability. See Position Statement of Department of Employment and Training on House Bill 1541 (February 22, 1984).

This primary purpose of House Bill 1541 is reflected in the bill's short title: "Unemployment Insurance-Taxable Wages". That short title is nevertheless somewhat misleading. Although the impetus behind House Bill 1541, as explained above, was to amend the definition of "wages" for taxation purposes, the amendment of this quite basic definition necessarily would have other effects that, while intended, are not reflected in the short title. For example, the defined term "wages" is also used in the law governing an employee's weekly benefit amount (Article 95A, §3(b)); by redefining "wages" to include sickness and accident disability benefits, employees will earn additional wage credits to be used in determining their weekly benefit amounts. Thus, the bill ultimately affects more than merely "taxable wages".

A far more serious problem, however, is the title's purpose clause:

"F[or] the purpose of including in an employee's wages, under the Unemployment Insurance Law, payments made under an employer's plan on account of illness or accident disability under a workmen's compensation law."

This title indicates that the only sickness or accident disability payments to be "included in . . . wages" are those "made . . . under a workmen's compensation law". In fact, the bill would do the exact opposite: it would "exclud[e] from 'wages'" those payments, and "only" those payments, that are "[made] under a workmen's compensation law". In other words, the bill is intended, and was specifically drafted, to include as wages all sickness or accident disability payments other than those made under a worker's compensation law; the title, on the other hand, states, that the bill is intended to include as wages only those sickness or accident disability payments that are made under a worker's compensation law.

II

Constitutional Requirements For Bill Titles

Article III, Section 29 of the Maryland Constitution requires that "every law enacted by the General Assembly shall embrace but one subject, and that shall be described in its title." The purpose of the second part of this provision is to fairly advise the General Assembly and the public of the real nature of pending legislation. Kelly v. State, 139 Md. 204 (1921). One of the essentials of a good title is that it not be misleading. Baltimore v. Deegan, 163 Md. 234 (1932). The title must not apparently limit the enactment to a much narrower scope than the body of the bill embraces. State v. King, 124 Md. 471 (1914).

Clearly, the discrepancy between the title of House Bill 1541 and the body of the bill is so great and obvious that there can be no doubt that the title fails altogether to comply with the constitutional requirements.

III

Conclusion

In sum, then, we are unable to approve House Bill 1541 for constitutionality. We note, however, that the federal law with which House Bill 1541 was designed to conform does not become effective until January 1, 1985. (For this reason, House Bill 1541 itself was introduced with a proposed delayed effective date of January 1, 1985.) We believe, therefore, that the purposes of House Bill 1541 can be accomplished at the next Regular Session of the General Assembly by enactment of an emergency bill, with a corrected title, that would amend Article 95A, §20(n) so as to apply to all benefits paid on or after January 1, 1985. An emergency bill is urged so that it could be enacted early in the session and become effective well before employers are required to make their first federal or state quarterly reports for calendar year 1985.

Stephen H. Sachs, Attorney General
Amy S. Scherr
Assistant Attorney General
Linda H. Lamone
Assistant Attorney General

Editor's Note: House Bill 1541 was vetoed by the Governor on May 29, 1984. Laws of Maryland 1984 at 4146-47. The emergency legislation suggested in the last paragraph of the preceding Opinion was enacted as Chapter 48, Laws of Maryland 1985.

The Opinion was originally written as a bill review letter. Because of the recurring nature of the issue addressed, it is published here in a slightly revised format.