The Maryland Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether the state can block many lawsuits filed under the 2023 Child Victims Act by invoking sovereign immunity — a ruling that could end hundreds, possibly thousands, of sexual-abuse claims and relieve the state of more than $1 billion in potential liability, officials and legal filings say.
What this means for plaintiffs and the state
The case centers on whether the 2023 law, which removed time limits for victims to bring institutional sexual-abuse claims, also removed the state's longstanding immunity for actions that occurred before July 1, 1982. The state has appealed a lower-court ruling in a Prince George’s County case identified as State v. J.C., where a judge declined to dismiss the plaintiff’s claim on sovereign-immunity grounds.
"The Child Victims Act did not waive sovereign immunity as to such claims, for which sovereign immunity had never previously been waived," the state wrote in its petition to the high court.
In its filings, the Attorney General’s Office argued the 2023 law lifted only the statute-of-limitations barrier and did not "even mention sovereign immunity," so claims tied to pre-1982 conduct remain barred.
Scale of potential impact
State officials estimate that roughly 12,000 individual lawsuits have been filed under the Child Victims Act. Some estimates cited in briefing papers place potential liability at about 15% of the state's current operating budget. The Attorney General's petition argues that thousands of these claims could be dismissed if the Supreme Court sides with the state.
| Figure | Value |
|---|---|
| Individual lawsuits filed under CVA | ~12,000 |
| Estimated potential liability (share of operating budget) | ~15% |
| Potential state budget impact cited | $1 billion+ |
The appeal before the Supreme Court grows out of a claim by a woman identified only by the initials J.C., who alleges she was abused while admitted to a state-operated residential treatment program at the University of Maryland Prince George’s Hospital Center. The case has become a test of how far the Child Victims Act reaches in overcoming older legal protections afforded to the state.
Conflicting lower-court rulings
Maryland’s Attorney General’s Office has pressed the sovereign-immunity argument in trial courts statewide, with mixed results. Judges in Frederick County and Baltimore City have agreed with the state’s reading and dismissed claims on that basis. But the Prince George’s County judge who handled State v. J.C. rejected the immunity defense, setting the stage for the high court appeal.
- Plaintiffs argue the Child Victims Act was intended to let survivors pursue old claims previously blocked by statutes of limitation.
- The state contends the act did not alter sovereign immunity and thus cannot be applied to bar pre-1982 conduct claims.
- The Supreme Court will resolve whether the statute enacted in 2023 implicitly or explicitly waived the state's historic immunity.
No hearing date has been scheduled. The Attorney General’s Office and the lead attorney for the Prince George’s County plaintiff did not provide additional comment to media requests, according to court filings and public records.
If the Supreme Court rules for the state, many plaintiffs could lose the opportunity for civil trials and settlements; if it rules for plaintiffs, the state could face a large financial obligation and a wave of successful claims. Either outcome will shape how Maryland balances legal protections for state institutions with access to the courts for survivors of institutional abuse.
Coverage will continue as the court sets a date and parties file further briefs.
