As Gov. Wes Moore pushes lawmakers to redraw Maryland’s congressional districts ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, a separate state decision is drawing scrutiny over timing and perception.
New questions are emerging about the separation of powers and the optics of a $147 million state contract approved for the very court that could decide on the legality of those maps.
The scrutiny intensified after Moore said in a February interview on “MS Now” that “we have been working with lawyers and working with judges” on redistricting — a remark that prompted ethical concerns and demands for clarification, given that the Supreme Court of Maryland frequently reviews congressional map challenges. While Moore’s office says he was referring to retired judges — not sitting members of the court — the timing of both the comment and the state’s approval of a new, state-of-the-art Supreme Court of Maryland Building in Annapolis has raised accountability questions amid a projected $1.4 billion state budget deficit.
The Board of Public Works, which includes Moore as a voting member, approved the construction contract on Dec. 17. The project will replace the court’s current building, which dates back to 1972.
The building approval came amid an escalating debate over whether Maryland should pursue mid-cycle redistricting, a move that could prompt legal challenges and has already attracted pushback from Republicans — and from within the governor’s Democratic Party.
Moore’s office later told The Baltimore Sun that the governor was referring to retired judges, not sitting members of the court, but declined to identify them. The office offered a similar explanation to Spotlight on Maryland ahead of publication, stating, “He [Moore] has the utmost respect for the independence of Maryland’s courts and has not discussed redistricting with any current members of the judiciary.”
A spokesperson for the Maryland Judiciary confirmed that “no sitting Supreme Court of Maryland justices have had any communication with Governor Moore or his staff about redistricting.”
Spotlight on Maryland has filed a public records request seeking any communications related to redistricting between the governor’s office and the judiciary.
Republican Del. Lauren Arikan, a member of the House Judiciary Committee, said the public should know which retired judges Moore consulted.
“I think the public, for transparency, should know who he spoke to about that issue because we need to know the judicial process is intact and has not been compromised by a breach in separation of powers,” she said.
Even without direct contact, Arikan said the timing of the building approval remains problematic, particularly given the court’s potential role in reviewing redistricting challenges.
“A $147 million building, 200,000 square feet, right at a time when the very folks could be deciding the legality of these redistricting maps — I think the timing is extremely questionable,” she said.
Some legal scholars say the situation does not necessarily present an ethical problem.
Mark Graber, a law professor at the University of Maryland’s Francis King Carey School of Law, said governors routinely take positions on matters that later come before the state’s highest court.
“I’m not sure there are any specific ethical dilemmas,” Graber said. “Every year, or most years, there are important issues brought before the Maryland Supreme Court where the governor is hoping for a favorable decision.”
Construction on the new Supreme Court building is scheduled to begin at the end of February. A spokesperson for the Maryland Department of General Services said the current building is 54 years old and faces aging-related challenges, but “has no outstanding, unaddressed maintenance concerns.” Initial planning conversations date back to August 2019, prior to Moore taking office, according to the department.
Comptroller Brooke Lierman, who also serves on the Board of Public Works, said the General Assembly approved bond issuances for the new Supreme Court building as part of the 2024 and 2025 budget cycles. In a statement, her office said proposals considered by the board undergo “multiple points of review, including by state agencies themselves and the Attorney General’s office, for any issues that call for further discussion, clarification, or consideration. The Board of Public Works provides final review and approval on the proposed items.”
The congressional map approved by the House would eliminate Maryland’s only Republican-held seat, currently represented by Rep. Andy Harris of the Eastern Shore. Democrats currently control seven of the state’s eight congressional districts.
During a recent FOX45 News broadcast, Harris said the proposal risks backfiring in court.
“If the court rejects the new map, they could also reject the current map and end up giving Republicans a second seat in Maryland,” Harris said.
The proposal now awaits action in the Senate. Senate President Bill Ferguson has said he will not bring the map to a vote, citing legal risks. Ferguson has said his focus during the 2026 legislative session will be on affordability issues facing Marylanders.
Spotlight on Maryland is a collaboration between FOX45 News, WJLA in Washington, D.C., and The Baltimore Sun. Have a story tip? Email spotlightonmaryland@sbgtv.com or call 410-467-4670. Investigative reporter Tessa Bentulan can be reached at tbentulan@sbgtv.com.