Baltimore City may have successfully blocked proposed payments of $1,000 to new parents.

The proposed charter amendment known as the Baltimore Baby Bonus Fund is unconstitutional and will not appear on city voters’ general election ballots, according to a Friday ruling from Judge John S. Nugent.

“Since the baby bonus amendment supplants the legislative authority of the City and does not implicate the form or structure of Baltimore City government, the Court finds that the proposed baby bonus amendment is unconstitutional,” the opinion reads.

In July, Baltimore Mayor Brandon Scott and the City Council filed a complaint in Baltimore City Circuit Court contesting the Baltimore City Board of Elections’ certification of the Bonus Fund and seeking to stop it from appearing on the ballot.

The Maryland Child Alliance crafted the charter amendment to allow voters the choice to provide one-time payments of at least $1,000 to new parents in the city upon the birth or adoption of a child.

At a virtual hearing Wednesday, attorney Thomas Webb, who is representing the plaintiffs, said the city would not take issue with a general directive to better the lives of families and young children. Under that condition, the city would have broad power to determine how to implement such a request through ideas like recreational programs or public health initiatives.

“[The amendment] says that the health and welfare of families in Baltimore City must be advanced by doing exactly this,” Webb said. “The city doesn’t have any discretion here. The city cannot decide a different way to try to advance these goals.”

This charter amendment, Webb argued, is a mandate. That makes it legislative in nature and therefore unconstitutional, he said. The fund was estimated to pay out at least $7 million per year if established.

“This would be the first amendment of its kind in Maryland,” Webb said. “There is no other charter amendment that I’m aware of that has ever directed a locality to give a specified amount of money to a specified group of people.”

Mark Stichel, the attorney representing the Maryland Child Alliance, said the charter amendment requires only that parents receive at least $1,000 but all other implementation details would be left to the City Council. He argued that even some eligibility requirements would be left up to the city — which Webb disputed — because the city could decide when someone other than a birth parent, such as an adoptive parent or family caregiver, could be eligible for the payment.

But in his ruling, Nugent found the Baby Bonus proposal “removes all meaningful discretion from the City.” Nugent sided with the city’s argument that its discretion in how the proposal would be implemented is “rendered meaningless as the proposal defines who is eligible to receive the bonus, the exact minimum amount of the bonus, and how it will be financed.”

“While some minimal discretion is left for the City regarding eligibility, it is difficult to imagine what additional significant parental eligibility restrictions the City would adopt under the language of the proposed baby bonus amendment,” the decision reads.

Maryland Child Alliance President Nate Golden has said that his organization “copy and pasted” its charter amendment language from the Baltimore Children & Youth Fund, which receives “an annual appropriation that is at least $0.03 on every $100 of assessed or assessable value of all property” in Baltimore. That fund was approved by voters through a charter amendment proposal in 2016.

Stichel argued the existence of the Baltimore Children & Youth Fund, which the city has not challenged, speaks to the constitutionality of the Bonus Fund.

Webb said the broad nature of the Children & Youth Fund makes it more legally viable, though he maintained that it’s irrelevant to the question of the Bonus Fund’s constitutionality. He added that the city wouldn’t challenge the Children & Youth Fund because it originated in the legislature.

In his decision, Nugent said the Baby Bonus “differs significantly” from the Children & Youth Fund because the latter leaves meaningful discretion to the city in administering programs and services.

“While reducing childhood poverty is an undoubtedly worthy initiative, the proposed baby amendment unlawfully infringes upon the legislative authority of the City,” the ruling reads.

The Maryland Child Alliance disagrees with Nugent’s characterization of the Baby Bonus and plans to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court of Maryland.

“Ultimately, like we really believe that the case law is on our side,” Golden said. “I’m surprised by the judge’s decision, but I ultimately think when the Supreme Court looks at it and it’s a set of judges instead of just one judge’s opinion ... I remain optimistic that the judges will side with us.”

In an emailed statement, the mayor’s office praised Nugent’s decision.

“As we’ve said from the beginning, we appreciate and support the goals of this initiative and the value of guaranteed income programs,” the statement reads. “However, we’re thankful that the court agreed we cannot legislate and mandate spending by ballot initiative. We look forward to advocating for guaranteed income on the national level and am hopeful that the supporters of this initiative will join us in that work.”

The Baltimore City Board of Elections is waiting on final decisions for both this case and the one stemming from Renew Baltimore, a volunteer group that is suing the board. Board Director Armstead Jones rejected the group’s petition to place a charter amendment that would cut city property taxes by nearly half on this year’s ballot.

The board will set its official ballot once those two decisions are final. Ballots can be printed as early as September 6.

If the Supreme Court reverses Nugent’s decision and the charter amendment ultimately makes it to the ballot, it’s likely to pass. Of the 126 questions that have appeared on city voters’ ballots since 2004, they have approved every single one.