The Supreme Court of Maryland recently heard arguments regarding the constitutionality of a 2023 law that eliminated the state's statute of limitations for child sexual abuse lawsuits. This law was enacted following a report that exposed widespread misconduct within the Archdiocese of Baltimore.
The discussions, which lasted several hours and delved into complex legal terminology, primarily focused on the intent of the Maryland legislature when it passed a previous law in 2017. This law allowed individuals in Maryland who were sexually abused as children to file lawsuits until they reached the age of 38.
A ruling from the state's highest court is anticipated in the coming months. Governor Wes Moore signed the Child Victims Act into law last year shortly after a report by the state's attorney general revealed extensive abuse by Baltimore clergy over an 80-year period, along with allegations of cover-ups by church leaders.
The comprehensive report, spanning nearly 500 pages, detailed incidents involving more than 150 Catholic priests and other individuals associated with the Archdiocese of Baltimore who abused over 600 children. State investigators, who commenced their work in 2019, reviewed over 100,000 pages of documents dating back to the 1940s and interviewed numerous victims and witnesses.
Prior to the law's implementation on October 1, the archdiocese filed for bankruptcy to safeguard its assets in anticipation of a surge in litigation. While claims against the archdiocese will be handled in bankruptcy court, other entities such as Catholic schools and individual parishes remain open to direct lawsuits.
All lawsuits filed under the Child Victims Act have been put on hold pending the Maryland Supreme Court's decision. The court's ruling will have significant implications for child sex abuse cases in Maryland, with Tuesday's oral arguments centering on a technical issue related to the 2017 law change that set the age limit at 38.
The key question revolves around whether a provision in the 2017 legislation shields certain defendants from liability permanently. This inquiry hinges on determining whether the provision should be classified as a statute of limitations or a statute of repose.
Attorneys representing defendants facing liability claims argue that it constitutes a statute of repose, which they assert cannot be altered due to a vested right to immunity from liability. Conversely, attorneys for abuse survivors contend that the legislature did not intend to make the provision permanent when passing the 2017 law.
While concerns were raised about witness testimony and record retention in cases filed decades later, the core arguments before the court centered on legislative intent. The court's decision is eagerly awaited as it will shape the landscape of child sexual abuse lawsuits in Maryland.
