Maryland’s Child Victims Act survives constitutional challenge; appeal is planned

Listen to this article

UPPER MARLBORO — A landmark Maryland law that allows survivors of childhood sexual abuse to file lawsuits regardless of how long ago their alleged abuse occurred survived its first constitutional challenge Wednesday, though an appeal to the state Supreme Court is expected to follow swiftly.

Judge Robin D. Gill Bright ruled that the 2023 Child Victims Act is constitutional, handing a win to survivors who have fought for years to bring legal claims against abusers and the institutions that shielded them.

The decision was met with quiet cheers from the courtroom gallery, where a group of abuse survivors and their supporters sat in on the lengthy hearing.

“Today is a great day for sexual abuse survivors in Maryland,” said Jonathan Schochor, one of the lawyers for the plaintiffs.

The ruling came as part of a pending class-action lawsuit against the Archdiocese of Washington, which argued in court that lawmakers could not retroactively remove the statute of limitations that governed these types of claims.

“It is our position that the law is unconstitutional and cannot be enforced,” said Richard Cleary, a lawyer for the archdiocese.

A constitutional challenge to the law has been expected from the start. The Child Victims Act has a built-in measure allowing for an interlocutory appeal so the Maryland Supreme Court can quickly decide on its constitutionality.

The Archdiocese of Washington, in a statement, indicated an appeal is forthcoming.

“The important constitutional principles presented in this case are not unique to The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Washington and are at issue in the cases filed against public entities, private schools, and secular and religious organizations across the state,” the church said. “The Archdiocese will pursue an immediate appeal of today’s decision, and regardless of the ultimate outcome of that appeal, we will remain committed to our longstanding efforts to bring healing to survivors through pastoral care and other forms of assistance that are available apart from the legal process.”

The law is also facing constitutional challenges in other venues, but Wednesday’s ruling is the first of its kind and will likely lead to the anticipated appeal. It’s not clear what the decision will mean for other pending lawsuits, though it’s possible they will be put on hold to avoid conflicting decisions before the Supreme Court can rule.

Schochor said the plaintiffs are planning to move ahead with discovery even if the Archdiocese of Washington appeals. The archdiocese did not immediately respond to a request for comment Wednesday afternoon.

The CVA led to a flood of new lawsuits based on decades-old childhood sexual abuse, which many survivors do not feel comfortable confronting until well into adulthood. Maryland legislators passed the law last year, days after a damning report by the Maryland Attorney General’s Office revealed an extensive history of clergy sexual abuse and coverups in the Archdiocese of Baltimore.

The Baltimore archdiocese filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in September, shortly before the CVA took effect. The move insulated the archdiocese from sexual abuse lawsuits and moved disputes over clergy abuse into bankruptcy court, where a creditors committee will decide how to pay out individual claims.

The Archdiocese of Washington, however, did not declare bankruptcy, leaving it open to lawsuits under the CVA. It brought the first known constitutional challenge to the law in response to a class-action complaint from three plaintiffs who are identified using pseudonyms in court documents.

The survivors are represented by the law firms Schochor, Staton, Goldberg and Cardea, P.A., and Janet, Janet & Suggs, LLC.

In court on Wednesday, the archdiocese’s lawyers argued that the CVA is unconstitutional because the Maryland legislature in 2017 passed a “statute of repose,” a little-known legal mechanism that offers stronger protections than a statute of limitations. The archdiocese also claimed it is unconstitutional to retroactively remove a statute of limitations.

Lawmakers have said they did not realize they were adding a statute of repose to the 2017 law, which extended the statute of limitations for civil child sexual abuse claims to 20 years after the victim turned 18.

The 2023 CVA went further, entirely eliminating the statute of limitations after years of hard-fought legislative battles. Opponents to the bill argued that the 2017 law created a “vested right” that protected institutions from out-of-date lawsuits.

“Once a repose period expires, the defendant has a substantive right to be free of that cause of action,” Cleary said.

But the plaintiffs’ lawyers said the 2017 law was not really a statute of repose, and that lawmakers can make adjustments to statutes of limitations.

“The legislature can create a statute of limitations, and they can also change it,” said Robert Peck, a lawyer for the plaintiffs.

Bright agreed, finding that the 2017 law was not a statute of repose and denying the archdiocese’s motion to dismiss. She found that lawmakers intended to extend the amount of time available for sexual abuse survivors to sue, not limit it.

“We are very happy that the court upheld the Child Victims Act, understanding that the General Assembly never intended to protect abuse enablers,” said Andrew Janet, a partner at Janet, Janet & Suggs. “Of course, we expect an appeal of the decision and look forward to continuing to fight for survivors to obtain the justice and compensation they deserve.”

Statutes of repose are typically used in construction to give builders and property owners certainty about their long-term liability.

For years, the purported statute of repose in the 2017 bill was a stumbling block for the CVA. In 2019, the Maryland Attorney General’s Office concluded that a retroactive window for lawsuits would “most likely be found unconstitutional,” a determination that kept the bill stuck in limbo for several years.

Last year, though, amid growing momentum for the bill after the report on clergy abuse in the Archdiocese of Baltimore, the Attorney General’s Office reversed course.  Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown wrote in an advice letter that the bill is “not clearly unconstitutional” and that he would be comfortable defending the proposal in court.

The Attorney General’s Office filed a brief supporting the bill in the Prince George’s County case decided Wednesday.