The Supreme Court of Maryland ruled Feb. 3 that the Child Victims Act passed by the General Assembly in 2023 is constitutional. The CVA removed any statute of limitations for civil suits involving child sexual abuse.
The law repealed a statute of repose that had been established in a 2017 law. Some institutions that had been sued after the CVA was enacted contested the constitutionality of the 2023 law on the basis that a statute of repose cannot be changed retroactively.
The justices ruled 4-3 that the state Legislature actually meant to extend the statute of limitations in the 2017 law, rather than establish a statute of repose, even though the term “statute of repose” was used numerous times in the 2017 bill.
The 2017 bill extended from age 25 to age 38 the time when victim-survivors of child sexual abuse could sue for civil damages. The Maryland Catholic Conference worked with legislators during the 2017 session to amend the bill and supported its passage.
The CVA was challenged by several institutions that had lawsuits filed against them when the statute of limitations was lifted, including The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Washington, Howard County Public Schools and the Key School in Annapolis. The court combined the three cases for the purpose of its ruling.
Citing sources that said many victims do not report abuse until later in life, sometimes after the age of 50, the court’s majority said, “(T)he existing statute of limitations did not reflect the reality of the time in which a reasonably diligent victim of child sexual abuse should be expected to pursue a claim.”
In the majority’s opinion, written by Chief Justice Matthew Fader, the court determined that the relevant section of the bill as enacted by the 2017 act was an ordinary statute of limitations, not a statute of repose.
“As an ordinary statute of limitations, the expiration of the statutory period in Subsection (d) did not give rise to a vested right to be free of liability. Accordingly, the Child Victims Act of 2023, which retroactively eliminated the statute of limitations in Subsection (d), did not retroactively abrogate vested rights in violation of the Constitution of Maryland and the Maryland Declaration of Rights,” the opinion said.
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Jonathan Biran said, “In concluding that Subsection (d) was a statute of limitations rather than a statute of repose, the Majority opinion fails to interpret the 2017 Act as the General Assembly wrote it. It is difficult to imagine how the General Assembly could more plainly state that Subsection (d) was a statute of repose.”
Biran’s opinion noted that a general principle of the Maryland Supreme Court’s precedents regarding interpretation of the way laws are written “is that the General Assembly knows what it is saying when it uses specific language.”
Biran noted that the 2017 law was passed just five years after the court had clarified the difference between a statute of limitations and a statute of repose.
Biran’s opinion was joined by justices Angela M. Eaves and Robert N. McDonald. McDonald is a retired justice who was specially assigned to this case in place of Justice Steven B. Gould.
Under the 2023 CVA, claims against governmental entities were capped at $890,000 per occurrence for injuries arising from an incident or occurrence; non-economic damages awarded to a single claimant against individuals or private institutions such as churches are capped at $1.5 million per defendant.
The court sent the cases involved back to lower courts for further proceedings and resolution.
In a statement issued Feb. 4, the Archdiocese of Washington said, “The archdiocese is in the process of reviewing the decision issued by the Supreme Court of Maryland. We remain committed to our longstanding efforts to bring healing to survivors through pastoral care and other forms of assistance. We are also committed to maintaining our robust safe environment protocols that have been in place for decades to ensure the protection of all those who are entrusted to our care.”
David Romans, fiscal and public policy coordinator for the General Assembly’s nonpartisan Department of Legislative Services said his department submitted written information that notes that about 3,500 people have sued the State of Maryland for damages arising from child sexual abuse while in state care, mainly in the juvenile justice system.
“The state’s tort liability (under the CVA) is capped at $890,000 per occurrence, but ‘occurrence’ is not defined in the legislation,” he told the Catholic Review Feb. 4. At that rate, the state’s potential liability is about $3.1 billion.
Gov. Wes Moore (D) indicated at the start of the legislative session that the state has a budget shortfall of $3 billion, and he would propose about $2 billion in cuts to state spending.
Romans said, “There’s no money in the budget” for settlements for abuse claims. “So, the governor and the Legislature would need to find the money if there is a settlement before the end of the session,” which ends April 7.
The Office of Attorney General Anthony G. Brown, which represents the state in the CVA lawsuits, declined comment when asked by the Catholic Review how the state plans to pay for any settlements.
Moore’s office did not respond to a request for comment from the Catholic Review.
Legal experts say it is unlikely that the case can be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court because it addresses a question of state constitutionality.
Marie T. Reilly, a professor of law at Penn State Dickinson Law School, said, “A state supreme court’s interpretation of its state’s law is generally binding precedent in both state and federal courts. The U.S. Supreme Court may review a state supreme court decision only if the litigants raised and the state supreme court decided the case based at least in part on federal law, (such as) the U.S. Constitution.” She said it did not appear that the organizations who challenged the 2023 Maryland law raised a challenge based on federal constitutional law.
“It’s not likely the Supreme Court would consider an appeal of the Maryland Supreme Court’s decision because there is no federal issue,” she said.
“The Maryland Constitution prohibits the Maryland Legislature from ‘retroactively abrogating vested property rights without just compensation,’” Reilly said, adding that the Maryland Supreme Court’s majority opinion Feb. 3 interprets the language in the 2017 statute as creating a statute of limitations defense, which is not a vested property right, versus a statute of repose, which is a vested property right.
“The dissenting opinion strongly disagreed and would have held that the 2017 statute created a vested property right that the Maryland Legislature could not ‘retroactively abrogate,’” Reilly said.
The Archdiocese of Baltimore was not a part of the Supreme Court case, since it filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization Sept. 29, 2023. The reorganization is now in the mediation stage.
Christian Kendzierski, executive director for communications for the archdiocese, said, “The Archdiocese of Baltimore remains committed to reaching its dual goals in this Chapter 11 process – providing reasonable and equitable compensation for survivors while preserving the ability of the archdiocese and its constituent parts to undertake their collective missions and ministries.”
Christopher Gunty is the associate publisher and editor of Catholic Review Media in Baltimore
