Anonymous Baltimore Archdiocese officials seek to prevent release of unredacted abuse report

Listen to this article

The Maryland Supreme Court on Friday is set to hear arguments against the release of an unredacted version of a 2023 report by the Maryland Office of the Attorney General, which documented decades of child sexual abuse within the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Baltimore.

Several groups of anonymous petitioners — current or former archdiocese officials, clergy and others — are challenging decisions by the Baltimore City Circuit Court and the Maryland Appellate Court giving the OAG the permission to publish their names.

The petitioners’ appeal brief says the purpose of the report was to “name and shame,” often relying on “hearsay” and “sheer rumor.”

“Petitioners here are not accused of sexual abuse, but instead were identified in the Report because OAG deemed them culpable for various and sometimes obscure reasons, including OAG’s perception that they did not do enough to stop the abuse,” the 14 petitioners’ appeal brief states.

The massive report, along with the 2023 Child Victims Act, sought to prompt a reckoning over the long history of child sexual abuse and spurred thousands of lawsuits.

Anticipating an unmanageable number of claims under the CVA, which ended the statute of limitations for lawsuits against the institutions that enabled abusers, the archdiocese declared bankruptcy days before the law took effect. Nearly 1,000 people have filed claims in the bankruptcy case. The state government, which is not immune from CVA claims, is facing the possibility of billions in liability for abuse at youth detention centers and other settings.

Zuckerman Spaeder, the Baltimore firm representing 14 of the petitioners, including five senior officials, says the OAG lacked the authority to conduct the investigation into the archdiocese. It says the law limits the governor’s authority to direct the OAG to investigate, and argues Gov. Larry Hogan‘s 2015 letter directing the investigation exceeded his power.

“OAG’s capacious reading of its own power … would upset the constitutional balance between OAG and state’s attorneys, and contravene the prerogatives of the General Assembly and the doctrine of separation of powers,” the appeal states.

The Supreme Court is set to consider four questions, including whether the OAG had the authority “to publish a report based on secret grand jury information that intentionally identifies uncharged individuals for the purpose of holding them to public account.”

The court will consider the balance of powers between the OAG, the state legislature, the governor and local prosecutors, as well as a potential conflict between a “balancing test” for the release of secret grand jury information and another authority prohibiting prosecutors from releasing information about uncharged individuals.

Zuckerman partners John Connolly and Gregg Bernstein, who served two terms as Baltimore City state’s attorney, are scheduled to argue for the 14 petitioners. Lawyers from Brown, Goldstein & Levy and K&L Gates, as well as Ellicott City lawyer Francis Collins, are representing the other petitioner groups.

The OAG declined to comment, as did Bernstein and Andrew Levy of Brown, Goldstein & Levy. A lawyer from K&L Gates did not respond to a request for comment.

The OAG maintains that the investigation and the publication of the report were lawful and that the report is not legally binding.

“The power to investigate necessarily encompasses the ability to document and organize the investigator’s findings,” the OAG’s reply brief states.

“Issuing a report is an act without legal effect,” it continues. “Rather than purporting to bind anyone — whether its author, its subjects, or its readers — a report transmits information and thus cannot be meaningfully distinguished from any other way in which a government official communicates with the public.”