On these pages, the Supreme Court of Maryland archives videos of the current term year oral arguments and videos of the oral arguments from the preceding three term years. Videos of arguments from earlier term years are available upon request. The Court's archive of oral argument videos covers the period from May 2007 to the present.
SEPTEMBER TERM 2025 Webcasts
Oral Arguments Archives
September Term 2024 Webcasts
September Term 2023 Webcasts
September Term 2022 Webcasts
Webcasts and the archived recordings of webcasts are made available to the general public for informational purposes only and do not constitute an official record of court proceedings. Recording or copying of any portion of the live webcast or the archived recording of a webcast is prohibited without the express permission of the Supreme Court, which can be obtained by contacting Government Relations and Public Affairs at 410-260-1488 or at [email protected]. Copies of the recorded audio of the proceedings are available from the Clerk upon request and payment of a $10.00 fee.
| September 2025 Schedule | ||
| Date | Docket # | Title |
| 09-09-2025 | Misc. No. 1 | Express Scripts, Inc., et al. v. Anne Arundel County, Maryland Certified Question of Law from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland 1) Under Maryland’s common law, can the licensed dispensing of, or administration of benefit plans for, a controlled substance constitute an actionable public nuisance? 2) If so, what are the elements of such a public nuisance claim, and what types of potential relief can a local government plaintiff seek when asserting such a claim? |
| 09-09-2025 | No. 10 | George Bowens v. State Farm Musual Automobile Insurance Company Issue – Insurance Law – Does the “debt or damages claimed” against an underinsured motorist carrier include amounts paid by the tortfeasor’s liability carrier? |
| 09-08-2025 | No. 2 | Jabari Morese Lyles v. Santander Consumer USA Inc. Issues – Contracts – 1) Where a separate document is never made available to, shown to, or signed by a contracting party, but that separate document is incorporated by reference into the underlying contract, is a consumer bound by the terms of that separate document despite having no knowledge of or access to the terms in that separate document? 2) When a contract contains two distinct integration clauses – one defining the rights and obligations between the buyer and the seller and the other defining the rights and obligations between the buyer and the assignee – does the assignee obtain rights under the terms of the buyer/seller integration clause? |
| 09-08-2025 | No. 8 | Diandre Goodrich v. State of Maryland Issue – Constitutional Law – Did the trial court err in denying Petitioner’s request for self-representation in violation of his constitutional rights and Maryland Rule 4-215? |
| 09-08-2025 | No. 9 | Engage Armament LLC, et al. v. Montgomery County, Maryland Issues – Public Safety – 1) Did the trial court correctly find that Maryland’s comprehensive system of firearms regulation preempted portions of Chapter 57 of the Montgomery County Code (to the extent that it regulates the possession, transport, sale, and transfer of firearms)? 2) Did the trial court correctly find that Chapter 57 of the County Code is not a “local law” within the meaning of Article XI-A, § 3 of the Maryland Constitution? 3) Did the trial court correctly find that Chapter 57 of the County Code affected a taking of “major components” of firearms and privately made firearms within the meaning of the Maryland Constitution, Article III, § 40, and Article 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights? 4) On Montgomery County’s cross-petition, did the trial court err in invalidating and prohibiting enforcement of portions of the county code that were not referenced in the operative complaint and that Petitioners placed at issue for the first time in their motion for summary judgment? |
| 09-05-2025 | No. 4 | In re: Criminal Investigation No. CID 18-2673 in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City Issues – Criminal Procedure – 1) Does Maryland’s attorney general have the constitutional authority to publish a report based on secret grand jury information that intentionally identifies uncharged individuals for the purpose of holding them to public account? 2) Does the state constitution authorize the governor to “direct” the attorney general to investigate and prosecute any “crimes of exploitation” for an unlimited time, and without accounting for the competing authority of the state’s attorneys and the General Assembly? 3) Did this Court’s creation in 1989 of a balancing test for release of secret grand jury information overrule its earlier authority categorically prohibiting a prosecutor from releasing information about uncharged individuals to hold them to public account? |
| 09-05-2025 | No. 5 | In re: Criminal Investigation No. CID 18-2673 in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City Issues – Criminal Procedure – 1) Does Maryland’s attorney general have the constitutional authority to publish a report based on secret grand jury information that intentionally identifies uncharged individuals for the purpose of holding them to public account? 2) Does the state constitution authorize the governor to “direct” the attorney general to investigate and prosecute any “crimes of exploitation” for an unlimited time, and without accounting for the competing authority of the state’s attorneys and the General Assembly? 3) Did this Court’s creation in 1989 of a balancing test for release of secret grand jury information overrule its earlier authority categorically prohibiting a prosecutor from releasing information about uncharged individuals to hold them to public account? |
| 09-05-2025 | No. 6 | In re: Criminal Investigation No. CID 18-2673 in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City Issues – Criminal Procedure – 1) Does Maryland’s attorney general have the constitutional authority to publish a report based on secret grand jury information that intentionally identifies uncharged individuals for the purpose of holding them to public account? 2) Does the state constitution authorize the governor to “direct” the attorney general to investigate and prosecute any “crimes of exploitation” for an unlimited time, and without accounting for the competing authority of the state’s attorneys and the General Assembly? 3) Did this Court’s creation in 1989 of a balancing test for release of secret grand jury information overrule its earlier authority categorically prohibiting a prosecutor from releasing information about uncharged individuals to hold them to public account? 4) Did ACM err by remanding the case to the trial court to conduct an individualized analysis when the undisputed record establishes as a matter of law that there is no particularized need to disclose Petitioners’ identities? |
| 09-04-2025 | Bar Admissions | |
| 09-04-2025 | AG No. 21 (2024 Term) | Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. David B. Mintz |
| 09-04-2025 | AG No. 27 (2024 Term) | Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Tristan Wade Gillespie |
| 09-04-2025 | No. 1 | Philip Clarke v. Chinyere Gibson Issues – Family Law – 1) Did the trial court err in finding Petitioner’s lack of credibility was sufficient evidence for finding physical abuse when there was no other evidence of a physical assault? 2) Did the trial court err and violate Petitioner’s due process rights when the Petition for Protection failed to plead any form of physical assault or child abuse? 3) Did the trial court err when it scheduled the hearing in excess of seven days in the future without stating good cause on the record? |