Skip to content 
Image: Supreme Court of Maryland seal. Source: Maryland Judiciary; image used under fair use.
Maryland eliminated the filing deadline for childhood sexual abuse lawsuits in 2023, giving survivors an opportunity to pursue claims even when the abuse happened decades earlier, Maryland Matters reported.
But what if the state can still argue that it can’t be sued for abuse that occurred before 1982?
That’s the question facing the Supreme Court of Maryland, which heard arguments November 9 in a case that could affect approximately 1,300 lawsuits filed under the state’s Child Victims Act.
The dispute centers on sovereign immunity, a legal protection that historically prevented people from suing the state without its permission.
Although Maryland ended its absolute immunity from certain lawsuits in 1982, state attorneys argue that the 2023 law didn’t clearly authorize claims involving abuse before that change took effect.
A 1977 Sexual Abuse Claim Sparks a Legal Dispute
The appeal stems from a lawsuit brought by a woman identified in court documents as J.C.
She alleges that a doctor sexually abused her in 1977 while she was a patient at the former Prince George’s Hospital Center.
After Maryland passed the Child Victims Act, she filed a civil lawsuit seeking to hold the state responsible.
The state moved to dismiss her case, arguing that it was protected by sovereign immunity when the alleged abuse occurred.
A Prince George’s County judge rejected that argument. However, judges in Frederick County and Baltimore City have dismissed similar lawsuits based on the state’s immunity defense.
Those conflicting decisions brought the issue before Maryland’s highest court.
Did Lawmakers Intend to Allow These Lawsuits?
The legal disagreement comes down to how the General Assembly worded the Child Victims Act.
Attorneys representing J.C. argue that lawmakers intended to expose the state to liability for older childhood sexual abuse claims. They point to provisions establishing damages caps for lawsuits against government entities.
Their reasoning is straightforward: Why would legislators establish compensation limits if they didn’t intend to allow those lawsuits?
The Maryland Attorney General’s Office argues that eliminating a filing deadline isn’t the same as waiving sovereign immunity. State attorneys contend that lawmakers needed to expressly authorize lawsuits involving abuse before July 1, 1982.
During oral arguments, Chief Justice Matthew Fader questioned whether legislators had even considered the state’s former immunity protections when drafting the 2023 law.
The justices must now decide whether the legislation clearly waived that protection or whether lawmakers’ broader intent is enough.
Childhood Sexual Abuse at an Institution? Know Your Legal Options
Schools, hospitals, detention facilities and other institutions may face civil lawsuits when their actions or failures contributed to childhood sexual abuse.
Learn about institutional responsibility, evidence, filing deadlines and the legal options that may be available to survivors.
What’s at Stake for Survivors?
Approximately 12,000 claims have been filed under Maryland’s Child Victims Act, according to Maryland Matters. About 1,300 involve alleged abuse before July 1, 1982.
The Attorney General’s Office has already filed roughly 200 motions to dismiss cases involving that period.
There’s also a substantial financial component.
The 2023 law capped damages against the state at $890,000 per occurrence, although courts are still considering how an occurrence should be defined. State attorneys have argued that dismissing the older claims could reduce Maryland’s potential liability by more than $1 billion.
But the consequences extend beyond the state’s finances.
In February 2025, the Supreme Court of Maryland upheld the Child Victims Act’s constitutionality in a 4–3 decision, allowing previously expired childhood sexual abuse claims to proceed.
The current case presents a narrower question involving the state’s responsibility for abuse allegedly committed before 1982. A ruling favoring Maryland wouldn’t invalidate the entire Child Victims Act or automatically affect claims against private institutions.
The court hasn’t announced when it will issue its decision.
For survivors whose cases fall within the disputed period, the ruling could determine whether they have an opportunity to pursue their claims or see them dismissed before the underlying allegations are heard in court.
