On Tuesday, the Maryland Supreme Court heard arguments regarding the constitutionality of the 2023 Child Victims Act. This Act has expanded justice for survivors of childhood sexual abuse.
However, several legal challenges are questioning whether the removal of the statute of limitations in child sex abuse cases conflicts with Maryland’s Constitution. A decision in these cases can impact how survivors across the state and the United States can pursue justice against those who perpetrated abuse.
We’ll examine the background of the Child Victims Act, the pending Maryland court decision, and what it could mean for survivors of sexual abuse in the future.
How the Child Victims Act Changed Statute of Limitations Laws
In 2023, Maryland Governor Wes Moore signed the Child Victims Act into law. With that, all time constraints that previously limited survivors of child sexual abuse from bringing civil claims were abolished. Under the previous state statutes, survivors had to file claims before turning 38 years old. The Child Victims Act now allows survivors to file claims at any time, no matter their age.
This law follows the example of other states that have passed reforms extending or abolishing the statute of limitations for child sexual abuse claims. For many survivors and their advocates, these reforms give them time to process their trauma and seek justice. Still, some have questioned whether these retroactive changes in the statute of limitations violate constitutional protections.
The Legal Challenges to the Act
The case before the Maryland Supreme Court deals with three challengers from the Key School in Annapolis, the Board of Education of Harford County, and the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Washington, D.C.
In the Board of Education of Harford County v. Doe, a case in which Laffey Bucci D’Andrea Reich & Ryan and Aaron Blank (Blank Kim) are representing the plaintiff, the case centers around allegations of sexual abuse by a teacher and a janitor employed by the Harford County School District that took place in between the 1980s to 1990s. The plaintiff, identified as John Doe, was sexually abused as a child in both elementary and high school. Now an adult, Doe is seeking justice for the abuse he suffered decades ago.
With the provision granted by the Child Victims Act, Mr. Doe has filed a civil lawsuit outside of the mandated time frame. However, the representatives of the Harford County Board of Education believe that any retroactivity of the law is unconstitutional and, in turn, should not be enforced. Their argument centers on whether the state constitution allows for retroactivity in previous time-barred civil claims. The brief from the Board of Education stresses that any retroactive legal action infringes on the principle of finality. As a result, that exposes entities and individuals to lawsuits for actions that occurred decades ago.
However, the standing brief from Doe argues that since the Board of Education of Harford County is a subdivision of the state, the Board cannot question state law, which is considered precedent. Concerning the Board’s arguments for exceptions, including the “dilemma” exception and claims of being a “unique governmental entity,” these claims are irrelevant or unsupported. According to the Doe brief, there is no legal basis for the Board to challenge the Child Victims Act.
Implications for Survivors of Sexual Abuse
The Maryland Attorney General’s Office submitted an amicus brief supporting the Child Victims Act. The attorney general argues that the state’s interest in providing justice for survivors of child sexual abuse outweighs concerns over retroactivity. Also, the psychological trauma associated with childhood sexual abuse prevents survivors from coming forward until well into adulthood. Many times, this happens after the original deadline has expired. The brief mentions that striking down the Act would deny these survivors an opportunity to hold their abusers accountable.
Some on the other end of the issue believe that if the Maryland Supreme Court upholds the constitutionality of the Act, it will lead to a flurry of new lawsuits being filed by survivors of childhood sexual abuse.
The outcome of this case not only applies to Maryland, but it could make changes across the United States. New York, New Jersey, and California have similar laws with extended or retroactive windows for survivors to file claims. But some states have also faced challenges with their laws.
What Is at Stake in This Decision?
The Maryland Supreme Court’s ruling will have far-reaching implications. If the court upholds the Child Victims Act, survivors will be able to seek justice without claims being dismissed as time barred. As a result, that could lead to increased accountability for schools, religious organizations, and youth organizations. In the past, many of these institutions were shielded from liability due to expired statutes of limitations.
If the court rules that the retroactive application of the Act is unconstitutional, it could create a negative precedent for future legislative reforms. Also, it would keep many childhood sexual abuse survivors from getting the justice they deserve, even decades after the incidents had occurred. Putting up these legal barriers will make institutions and abusers unaccountable for their actions.
The Future of These Cases Remain in the Balance
As the Maryland Supreme Court deliberates on the constitutionality of the Act, the stakes could not be higher for survivors of childhood sexual abuse. Advocates, survivors, and legal experts are watching closely. This ruling could represent a turning point in the fight for justice for survivors of these crimes.
At Laffey Bucci D’Andrea Reich & Ryan, we have always been advocates for victims of childhood sexual abuse. Victims should always have the right to pursue legal action, whether the incident occurred last week or decades ago. Institutions that shielded these perpetrators should be held accountable to the law. No matter the outcome, we will continue our efforts to represent the most vulnerable in our communities and bring those sexual abuse offenders to justice in the civil courts.