Maryland Governor Wes Moore vetoed Senate Bill 426 on June 3, 2026, killing legislation that would have exempted divorce applications, financial settlements, and custody orders from public records requests. The veto means Maryland divorce records remain open to the public, leaving the privacy-versus-transparency fight unresolved heading into a possible override vote.
Key Facts
| Detail | Summary |
|---|---|
| What happened | Gov. Wes Moore vetoed Senate Bill 426 |
| When | June 3, 2026 |
| Where | State of Maryland |
| Who's affected | Anyone filing for divorce or custody in Maryland |
| Key statute/rule | Maryland Public Information Act (Md. Code, Gen. Provisions § 4-101 et seq.) |
| Impact | Divorce, financial, and custody records remain publicly accessible |
Why this matters legally
The veto preserves the long-standing default rule that Maryland court records, including divorce files, are presumptively open to the public. SB 426 would have changed that by carving divorce-related documents out of the Maryland Public Information Act, the statute that governs public access to government records. By rejecting the bill, Governor Moore kept Maryland aligned with the general principle that judicial proceedings, including family law matters, operate under public scrutiny.
This decision affects real people in tangible ways. The bill was reportedly inspired by a constituent whose publicly posted divorce records led to death threats, according to The Daily Record. That story illustrates the genuine safety stakes embedded in this debate. Divorce files routinely contain Social Security numbers, bank account information, salary figures, custody arrangements detailing where children live, and intimate allegations raised during contested proceedings. When those documents sit in an open court file, anyone, including former partners, employers, or strangers, can request them.
Moore framed his veto around government accountability. He called the bill too heavy-handed and warned it could curtail public oversight of judicial rulings. That reasoning reflects a competing value: open records let journalists, researchers, and citizens verify that courts apply the law fairly and consistently. The veto tells us the Governor weighed transparency over categorical privacy, at least in the form SB 426 proposed.
How Maryland law handles this
Maryland divorce records are currently governed by two overlapping frameworks: the Maryland Public Information Act and the Maryland Rules on access to court records. Under Maryland Rule 16-901 et seq., court records are presumed open unless a specific exception or a judge's sealing order applies. SB 426 would have added divorce documents to the categorical exemptions, but with the veto, no such automatic protection exists.
That does not mean Maryland litigants are powerless. Maryland Rule 16-934 allows a party to file a motion to seal or limit access to a case record. To succeed, the requesting party must show that the need for confidentiality outweighs the public's interest in access, a fact-specific standard that judges apply case by case. Common grounds include protecting minor children, shielding sensitive financial data, or addressing documented safety threats like the one that motivated SB 426.
Maryland law already shields certain information by default. Under Maryland Rule 16-903 and related provisions, some categories such as financial disclosure forms, certain medical records, and information about minors receive limited protection or redaction. Domestic violence protective order proceedings also carry heightened confidentiality. The practical takeaway is that the veto leaves the existing case-by-case sealing system intact rather than creating a blanket rule, meaning the burden remains on individual filers to request protection.
Practical takeaways
-
Assume your Maryland divorce file is public unless you act. Following the June 3, 2026 veto, no automatic exemption shields divorce, financial, or custody records. Treat everything you file as potentially accessible to anyone who requests it.
-
Ask your attorney about a motion to seal under Maryland Rule 16-934 if your case involves safety concerns, large financial holdings, or sensitive allegations. The motion must demonstrate that confidentiality outweighs public access, so build your record early.
-
Minimize sensitive data in filings where possible. Use redacted financial forms, reference account numbers by last four digits, and avoid placing Social Security numbers in the body of pleadings. Maryland Rule 1-322.1 addresses redaction of personal identifiers.
-
Document any threats or harassment immediately. If you face a safety situation like the constituent whose case inspired SB 426, preserve screenshots, police reports, and dates. These records strengthen a sealing motion and may support a protective order.
-
Watch for an override attempt. Maryland lawmakers may try to override the veto, which requires a three-fifths vote in both chambers. If the override succeeds, the privacy exemption could still become law, so monitor the legislative calendar with your attorney.
-
Settle outside the public record when appropriate. Negotiated settlement agreements and mediation can reduce the volume of contested filings that end up in an open court file, giving you more control over what becomes public.
If you are filing for divorce in Maryland and worried about who can see your records, talk to a Maryland family law attorney about your privacy options before you submit your first pleading. A short conversation about sealing motions, redaction, and filing strategy can prevent sensitive information from becoming permanently public.
This article discusses recent news and provides general legal commentary. It does not constitute legal advice. Every case is unique. Consult a qualified family law attorney for advice specific to your situation.