The Supreme Court of Maryland Deems the Child Victims Act of 2023 Constitutional

BY JASON D. MEDINGER, ESQ.

The Child Victims Act of 2023 has faced significant legal challenges since its enactment, primarily concerning its retroactive application to revive previously time-barred claims of child sexual abuse. The law eliminated all time restrictions for filing civil actions arising from childhood sexual abuse, thereby allowing survivors to bring lawsuits that had been barred under prior statutes of limitations. In response, several institutional defendants, including religious organizations and school boards, contested the Act’s constitutionality, arguing that its retroactive application unlawfully abrogated vested rights.

The Supreme Court of Maryland recently addressed these challenges and ultimately upheld the constitutionality of the Act’s retroactive application.1 The decision turned on whether a provision of the 2017 law that previously governed such claims constituted a statute of repose—which would have conferred

The Child Victims Act of 2023 has faced significant legal challenges since its enactment, primarily concerning its retroactive application to revive previously time-barred claims of child sexual abuse.

vested rights upon expiration—or a statute of limitations, which could be repealed without violating due process principles. The court concluded that the 2017 provision was a statute of limitations and, as such, did not create vested rights. Consequently, the General Assembly’s repeal of the provision in 2023 did not violate constitutional protections.

Under Maryland due process jurisprudence, vested rights cannot be retroactively eliminated by legislative action. However, the court reaffirmed that there is no vested right in the continued application of a statute of limitations, only in a statute of repose, which was not at issue here.

Legislative Background and Procedural History

In 2017, the Maryland General Assembly enacted legislation that extended the statute of limitations for child sexual abuse claims and, significantly, added a new provision—Subsection (d) of Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article § 5-117. This provision prohibited the filing of an action against a non-perpetrator defendant—such as an employer or institution—more than 20 years after the victim reached the age of majority.

The law also contained heightened standards for obtaining damages against such non-perpetrator defendants, requiring proof of gross negligence and an employment or supervisory relationship with the perpetrator. The 2017 Act was framed as a legislative compromise that sought to balance the rights of survivors to seek redress with concerns about fairness to institutions that might struggle to defend against decades-old claims.

In 2023, the General Assembly passed the Child Victims Act of 2023, which repealed all time restrictions on child sexual abuse claims, eliminating the 20-year bar for non-perpetrator defendants set by the 2017 law. This repeal was explicitly retroactive, meaning it allowed plaintiffs to bring previously barred claims. Following the law’s enactment, numerous lawsuits were filed against institutional defendants, several of whom moved to dismiss on the grounds that Subsection (d) of the 2017 Act had created a vested right to repose—a substantive immunity from liability that could not be revoked retroactively. These defendants argued that their right to be free from suit had become vested once the 20-year period expired. The trial courts rejected these arguments, and the Supreme Court of Maryland granted review to resolve the constitutional challenge.

Statutory Interpretation: Distinguishing Between Statutes of Limitations and Statutes of Repose

The Supreme Court of Maryland’s analysis centered on whether Subsection (d) of the 2017 law constituted a statute of repose or a statute of limitations. This distinction was critical because statutes of limitations can be modified or repealed retroactively, whereas

statutes of repose create vested rights that cannot be disturbed once they have expired.

The court explained that a statute of limitations is procedural in nature, restricting the time within which a plaintiff may file a lawsuit but not eliminating the cause of action itself. It is designed to encourage the prompt resolution of claims and ensure fairness by requiring suits to be brought while evidence is still available. A statute of repose, by contrast, eliminates the underlying cause of action after a set period, creating substantive immunity from liability for potential defendants.

The court determined that Subsection (d) was a statute of limitations based on several key factors. First, it emphasized that Subsection (d)’s limitation period was triggered when the victim reached the age of majority, rather than an event related to the defendant’s conduct, which is more typical of a statute of repose. Statutes of repose typically begin running from the last act of the defendant—such as the completion of a construction project or the sale of a product—whereas Subsection (d) was tied to the plaintiff’s age, which aligns more closely with a statute of limitations.

Second, the court found that Subsection (d) did not eliminate a cause of action, but merely prohibited filing a lawsuit after a certain period. This distinction is crucial because a statute of repose would completely extinguish the legal right itself after a defined period, even if the injury was not yet discovered. The court further considered the legislative history of the 2017 Act, noting that while some documents described Subsection (d) as a “statute of repose,” there was no substantive legislative discussion of repose-like consequences, such as the vesting of immunity. The absence of discussion about creating vested rights led the court to conclude that Subsection (d) was a statute of limitations rather than a statute of repose.

Because the court determined that Subsection (d) did not confer vested rights on defendants, it held that the provision could be repealed retroactively without violating the Maryland Constitution.

Constitutional Analysis and Due Process Considerations

Having concluded that Subsection (d) was a statute of limitations, the court next considered whether its retroactive repeal in the Child Victims Act of 2023 violated due process principles under the Maryland Constitution. The key issue was whether the elimination of Subsection (d) unfairly deprived defendants of a vested property right.

Under Maryland due process jurisprudence, vested rights cannot be retroactively eliminated by legislative action. However, the court reaffirmed that there is no vested right in the continued application of a statute of limitations, only in a statute of repose, which was not at issue here. Because the court found that Subsection (d) did not confer a vested right, its repeal in 2023 was not unconstitutional.

Applying heightened rational basis review, the court analyzed whether retroactive legislation must bear a real and substantial

The Supreme Court of Marylands’ decision has significant implications for attorneys representing both survivors of childhood sexual abuse and institutional defendants.

relation to a legitimate government interest. It concluded that the elimination of time restrictions in child sexual abuse claims was justified by compelling public policy reasons,

including the recognition that many victims of childhood sexual abuse do not disclose their abuse until decades later due to psychological trauma, fear, and institutional cover-ups. The court also considered evidence that many institutions had actively concealed instances of abuse, preventing survivors from seeking justice within the previous statutory limits. Given these findings, the court ruled that the Child Victims Act of 2023 satisfied constitutional due process requirements and could be applied retroactively to allow previously time-barred claims to proceed.

Implications for Maryland Attorneys

The Supreme Court of Marylands’ decision has significant implications for attorneys representing both survivors of childhood sexual abuse and institutional defendants. First, the ruling removes all time restrictions on bringing child sexual abuse claims, meaning that previously time-barred claims can now be revived. Attorneys representing survivors should be aware that they may now pursue claims that were previously barred under the 2017 statute of limitations. Conversely, attorneys representing institutions—including schools, religious organizations, and other non-perpetrator defendants—must prepare to defend against allegations that may stem from incidents that occurred decades ago. Given that many of these cases involve substantial evidentiary challenges due to the passage of time, defense attorneys will likely focus on establishing laches or other equitable defenses to mitigate potential liability.

Jason Medinger is currently serving as an Assistant United States Attorney in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Maryland. Any information or views expressed herein are his own and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Department of Justice.