Maryland's High Court Upholds Child Victims Act, Reviving Decades-Old Abuse Claims

Maryland's highest court has settled one of the most consequential statute of limitations fights in the country. On February 3, 2025, the Supreme Court of Maryland upheld the Child Victims Act of 2023, the law that wiped out the filing deadline for civil child sexual abuse claims and reopened the courthouse to survivors whose claims had long been time-barred.

The decision came in a 4-3 split. The majority held that the state legislature had the constitutional authority both to abolish the statute of limitations going forward and to revive claims that earlier deadlines had already extinguished.

Information last verified on June 20, 2026.

What the Court Decided

The court resolved three consolidated cases in a single opinion: The Key School, Inc. v. Bunker (Misc. No. 2, September Term 2024), Roman Catholic Archbishop of Washington v. Doe (No. 9), and Board of Education of Harford County v. Doe (No. 10). Chief Justice Matthew Fader wrote the majority opinion, and Justice Jonathan Biran dissented.

All three cases turned on the same issue. Institutions sued under the new law argued that an earlier version of the statute had given them a vested right to be free from these suits, and that the legislature could not retroactively strip that right away.

The majority disagreed. It read the relevant 2017 provision as a statute of limitations, and it held that the mere running of a limitations period does not create a vested right that the Maryland Constitution protects from retroactive change. Because no vested right was at stake, the legislature was free to repeal the deadline and revive the claims it had once barred.

The Law at the Center of the Case

The Child Victims Act of 2023 was Senate Bill 686, enacted as Chapter 5 of the 2023 laws and effective October 1, 2023. According to the General Assembly's official synopsis, the Act repealed the statute of limitations in civil actions relating to child sexual abuse, repealed a statute of repose for those actions, and provided for the retroactive application of the change.

That retroactivity is what made the law so far-reaching. A statute of limitations sets a deadline measured from an injury or its discovery. A statute of repose is harder to overcome, because it cuts off claims after a fixed period no matter when the harm is discovered. Maryland had added a repose-style cutoff in 2017, and the institutions argued that cutoff had locked in their protection for good.

The current law now lives in Maryland Courts and Judicial Proceedings section 5-117. As the statute reads today, notwithstanding any time limitation under a statute of limitations or a statute of repose, an action for damages arising out of child sexual abuse that occurred while the victim was a minor may be filed at any time.

Why the Revival Survived Constitutional Review

Reviving expired claims is constitutionally fraught, and courts in different states have come out differently. The objecting institutions invoked Maryland's protections against retroactive legislation, including the guarantees in the Maryland Declaration of Rights, arguing that letting a decades-old claim proceed deprived them of a settled right.

The majority's answer was that the 2017 provision functioned as a statute of limitations rather than a true statute of repose, and that the running of a limitations period does not vest an irrevocable right. Without a vested right, the usual bar on retroactive laws did not apply, and the legislature's choice to reopen the window stood.

Justice Biran's dissent took the opposite view, reasoning that the earlier provision operated as a statute of repose for non-perpetrator defendants and so had given those defendants a protection the legislature could not later take back. The 4-3 division reflects how closely balanced these revival questions are, even among judges on the same court. For readers trying to understand how filing deadlines work in the first place, our overview of the statute of limitations in the United States explains the difference between a limitations period and a repose period that proved decisive here.

The Stakes for Survivors and Institutions

The practical effect was immediate. Before the law, civil suits over child sexual abuse generally had to clear a 20-year limit measured from the victim turning 18. The Act removed that ceiling for claims against both public and private entities, so a survivor can now sue regardless of how much time has passed.

The numbers are large. Reporting at the time of the decision noted the state was facing roughly 3,500 potential claims, with some allegations reaching back to the 1960s. The ruling also affected major institutional defendants, including dioceses and public school systems, that had been waiting to learn whether the revived claims could proceed.

The Legislature Responds: New Damages Caps

The court fight was not the end of the story. Within weeks of the ruling, the General Assembly moved to limit the financial exposure the decision created. Lawmakers amended the Act to reduce the damages available in newly filed cases.

For actions filed on or before May 31, 2025, the noneconomic damages cap had been $1.5 million per claim against a private institution. Under the amendment, actions filed on or after June 1, 2025, are capped at $700,000 in noneconomic damages for a single claimant against a single defendant. The amendment also limits recovery to one award per claimant per defendant and caps attorney fees at 20 percent for settlements and 25 percent for court judgments.

In other words, the constitutional door the court opened stays open, but the legislature narrowed how much each revived claim can be worth depending on when it is filed.

Analysis: Why This Matters

The following analysis reflects the views of the Recording Law Editorial Team.

Maryland's decision is one of the clearest recent statements that a legislature can not only extend a filing deadline but resurrect claims the old deadline had already killed. The line the court drew is the line that matters in every revival fight: whether the expired deadline created a vested right. The majority said it did not, and that conclusion is what let thousands of decades-old claims move forward.

The split is just as instructive as the holding. A 4-3 vote means the same facts could plausibly have produced the opposite result, and they have in other states where courts treated an expired limitations period or a statute of repose as untouchable. That divergence is exactly why the distinction between a statute of limitations and a statute of repose is not academic. Whether a deadline can be reopened often depends on which label a court attaches to it, a contrast that plays out differently from state to state. The same mechanics drive timing disputes in ordinary civil cases as well, including in states like Ohio and Utah, where the length of the clock and the rules for pausing it shape whether a claim can be heard at all.

The legislative sequel is a reminder that winning the constitutional question is not the same as setting the recovery. By cutting the damages caps almost immediately after the ruling, Maryland lawmakers showed that the value of a revived claim can shift sharply based on its filing date. That is a powerful, and easily overlooked, reason that timing remains central to these cases even after a court says they may be brought.

Nothing in this article is legal advice. Whether a particular claim is timely, whether a revival statute applies, and what damages may be available are fact-specific questions governed by each state's statutes and court decisions. Anyone considering a claim should consult a licensed attorney in their state. For a broader map of how filing deadlines differ across the country, see our guide to the statute of limitations in the United States.