Skip to content
A late-session bill aiming to cap financial payouts for survivors of child sexual abuse in Maryland has drawn sharp criticism from legal advocates and civil rights leaders, who call the proposal both insulting and likely unconstitutional. The legislation, House Bill 1378, comes just one year after Maryland passed the landmark Child Victims Act (CVA) of 2023, which lifted time restrictions for survivors to sue public and private institutions, Maryland Matters‘ Bryan P. Sears reported recently.
HB1378, introduced by Delegate C.T. Wilson (D-Charles), seeks to impose limits on how much money survivors of abuse while in state custody can receive. Under the proposed measure, each plaintiff would be required to go through a mandatory arbitration process before pursuing a jury trial. If passed, the bill would reduce the maximum award for cases filed after October 1, 2025, to $400,000 per claimant, down from the current $890,000. The bill also removes the ability for plaintiffs to seek damages for each instance of abuse, instead basing payouts on each individual regardless of how many times abuse occurred.
Wilson, himself a survivor of childhood abuse, said the intent behind the law remains the same: to give victims a voice. “I just wanted people to have an opportunity to come and tell their story,” Wilson said. “That’s what they begged for — giving survivors a voice, allowing them to acknowledge their pain, and making sure they know that Maryland hurt them.”
Still, Wilson defended the new proposal as a necessary balance between justice for victims and the fiscal realities of state governance. “We’re not a private corporation. We do not have endless reserves, nor can we shift the cost to the shareholders,” he said.
The bill’s opponents, including attorneys representing thousands of survivors, say the move is both legally and morally wrong. Andrew Freeman of Brown, Goldstein & Levy warned the proposed cap would undermine survivor expectations and violate their constitutional rights. “Reducing the amount to $400,000 per claimant is more than inadequate consulting. It also is retroactive to the extent that we’re taking away the expectations that people have built,” he told lawmakers. “It would still be unconstitutional, no matter what it costs taxpayers.”
National civil rights attorney Ben Crump emphasized that the majority of claimants are African American survivors who suffered abuse in state juvenile detention facilities. “The proposed amendment with the $400,000 ceiling I believe is an insult to them,” Crump said. “Capping the damages on a per claimant basis is not just denial of equal justice, I believe it is a shame before God.”
Emotions ran high during a Judiciary Committee hearing as Wilson clashed with colleagues over whether the proposal was fair, especially in its different treatment of public and private institutions. Wilson maintained that the state had a unique responsibility given the nature of the abuse. “State victims are people who are trapped, not only being detained but being raped,” he said.
The fiscal risk to the state has been a major concern among lawmakers. Legislative analysts reported that more than 3,500 claims have been filed against state agencies, including the Department of Juvenile Services, some dating back to the 1960s. Based on the current law’s payout of $890,000 per occurrence, the liability could exceed $3 billion. Some worry the number could be even higher if survivors are allowed to claim multiple instances of abuse.
A group of nearly two dozen law firms, representing approximately 5,000 potential claimants, said their clients often experienced multiple instances of abuse. While the firms declined to disclose specific settlement figures, they indicated that they have offered to settle for a fraction of the state’s total potential exposure.
Despite the controversy, HB1378 is moving quickly, with only days left in Maryland’s 2025 legislative session. The bill must pass the House Judiciary Committee and the full House before it can head to the Senate. Opponents argue that the speed of the process undermines thoughtful review. “This is very ‘ready, shoot, aim’ legislation,” said Tom Yost, founder of the Baltimore-based Yost Legal Group.
As Maryland grapples with how to financially and ethically handle the fallout of institutional abuse, the debate underscores the tension between fiscal responsibility and moral accountability. Whether lawmakers will ultimately pass the proposed cap remains uncertain, but for thousands of survivors, the stakes could not be higher.
