Mayor Scott is using ‘aggressive’ legal tactics in his IG dispute. Here’s why.

Baltimore Mayor Brandon Scott is escalating his dispute with Inspector General Isabel Mercedes Cumming by asking a state appellate court to intervene rather than comply with a judge’s order to release records she seeks for investigations.

At the same time, the Scott administration released documents in which they suggest Cumming has been abusing her access to city records. The documents shed some light on the motivations behind the administration’s hard-charging approach to the case.

In an emergency motion filed late Tuesday, Scott’s legal team asked the state’s second-highest court to take up the dispute over how the inspector general’s office can conduct investigations into waste, fraud and abuse.

On Wednesday, the administration released several new documents they said were to be exhibits in the case. One, a letter from two top administration officials to the inspector general, alleges a “concerning pattern” of overreach by Cumming. The letter, which was written in response to an unpublished follow-up investigation into a senior employee, suggests Cumming was accessing city records beyond the scope of her investigations.

According to the letter, the administration was alarmed when it discovered Cumming had access to draft city budget documents while lobbying for a staffing increase in 2025. A social media post by Cumming in early 2026 also raised alarm. The post “closely tracked” internal legal advice given to a city employee and was posted one day later, according to the letter.

“The senior employee’s concern about prolonged, unfettered and unannounced surveillance on city employees — which extended far beyond any justifiable scope of an investigation tied to a legitimate complaint — ultimately proved to be valid,” wrote Chief of Staff J.D. Merrill and Deputy Solicitor Stephen Salsbury.

Cumming had no comment Wednesday.

The administration’s release of the documents coupled with the court filing represent an intensifying response in the face of a judge who has repeatedly expressed a dim view of the city’s clamp down on Cumming’s access. In her latest order Aug. 14, Retired Circuit Court Judge Pamela White denied the city’s motion to dismiss Cumming’s lawsuit and ordered the city to comply with subpoenas seeking city records for the inspector general’s investigations.

The city said Tuesday it faces “irreparable harm” if forced to produce the materials because they include documents that are privileged, confidential and investigatory.

While acknowledging that White said Cumming’s subpoenas are not restricted by the state public records act, she “does not identify which, if any, privileges, confidentiality statutes, or other protections remain available when the city responds,” city attorneys wrote to the appeals court.

The case has legal implications for the inspector general’s subpoena power as well as the applicability of the state’s public information law, city attorneys wrote.

“Those questions extend beyond a single production dispute. Preserving the status quo permits the appellate court to address them without risking disclosures that may later be determined unlawful.”

One of Cumming’s pro bono attorneys, Mark Stichel, said they had “received the city’s filings, and we will file a response in due course.”

By the next day, White denied the city’s motion to pause the proceedings and set a hearing for mid-September, though the appellate court could still issue a stay. White said the records will be relevant to the next phase of the case.

For years, the inspector general’s office has had direct access to city records such as memos, emails and documents as it investigates waste, fraud and abuse. When a document is accessed, Cumming has said her office fills out a form, although there is currently no oversight of that process.

In January, Scott’s team cut access to legal records for Cumming and her staff after officials discovered via a check of drives controlled by city attorneys that the inspector general had “unfettered access” to a city attorney’s files. That access, City Solicitor Ebony Thompson argued, was a violation of attorney-client and work product privileges.

Weeks later, Scott further limited Cumming, this time blocking her office from direct access to all city documents. The administration cited legal advice it had received from an attorney with the Office of the Maryland Attorney General, who said Cumming was subject to the Maryland Public Information Act. That act bars public entities like the city from releasing certain records, such as personnel and financial information.

Cumming’s attorneys have argued the state’s public record law does not supersede the city charter, which gives the inspector general the power to conduct investigations. White, the judge, has said she agrees.

“The jurisdiction of the OIG to perform its work, including the issuance and enforcement of its subpoenas, is not in conflict with or restricted by the MPIA,” White wrote in her ruling. “The City’s argument subjecting OIG subpoenas and investigatory requests to MPIA exclusions are inapt.”

Amy Sloan, a law professor at the University of Baltimore, said that the city appears to be “aggressively pursuing every procedural vehicle they have available.” Such mid-litigation appeals are unusual and generally frowned upon by courts, but may be necessary in certain cases.

“The city may argue that if they are required to disclose information while the case is pending, it can’t be undisclosed, so a later appeal can’t provide an effective remedy. Not many cases will present a situation that would justify an exception, but the city could argue that this is one of them.

”That’s the kind of situation where an appellate court would be more willing to consider an interlocutory appeal," she added.

In a statement from the city’s Law Department, the administration said the move was necessary because the inspector general was “improperly” using her access.

“The OIG now has a demonstrated track record of misusing their previous scope of access to engage in activity that both violates state law, and the very professional conduct standards, ‘The Green Book,’ which they repeatedly cite in public statements and in legal arguments throughout the litigation,” city attorneys said.

The Green Book outlines the official standards for inspectors general.

The letter, released by the Scott administration in response to a Maryland Public Information Act request, states that Cumming investigated a senior employee because they reported to city technology officials that the inspector general had access to their communications and documents. Cumming said the employee, whose name was redacted, violated the city’s administrative manual and ethics ordinance.

In its response, the administration called the report “deeply disconcerting.”

The report “follows a concerning trend of retaliatory behavior you have undertaken against this senior employee after they raised legitimate concerns about overreach and abuse of authority from your office,” the administration said.