By: Raquel Hyatt*

I. Introduction

When Sally Benson was fifteen years old, the staff at Key School, located in Annapolis, Maryland, removed her from her physically and verbally abusive home and placed her into a faculty member’s residence.[1] Unbeknownst to Benson at the time, Key School had dragged her out of one horrific living situation and placed her into another, leaving Benson with no one to protect her. When Benson graduated in the spring of 1978 at the age of seventeen, she had endured even more trauma than she had at home.[2] During her time at Key School, staff and other adults hosted parties where they would brutally take advantage of Benson, forcing her to participate in sexual activity and consume drugs and alcohol.[3]  As a young adult, Benson dealt with depression, eating disorders, and attempted suicide as a result of the abuse she endured as a child.[4] Benson did not recognize that her psychological issues stemmed from her abuse until 2015 when she was completing her doctoral program at the University of Arizona.[5]

In 2018, survivors[6] exposed Key School for harboring at least eight faculty members and two adult chaperones who had sexually exploited, groped, and/or pursued relationships with their students during the 1970s and 1990s.[7] Benson, now sixty-two years old, and three other former Key School students recently filed complaints under the Child Victims Act in Maryland (the “Act”),[8] which eliminated the statute of limitations on civil actions for child sexual abuse claims.[9] Without this Act, individuals, like Benson, who still endure the trauma from the heinous abuse they suffered as children would be barred from seeking justice.

This comment examines and explains why relaxing the statute of limitations for child sexual abuse claims is appropriate.[10] Additionally, this comment argues that the current language of the Act is constitutionally vulnerable.[11] Part II explores the origins and development of the anti-sexual abuse movement, which has influenced states to alter their statute of limitation periods for child sexual abuse claims.[12] Specifically, Part II focuses on the influx of survivors[13] sharing their child sexual abuse stories in tandem with both the rise of the “Me Too” movement and the recent revelations of the Catholic Church scandal.[14]

Part III defines the psychological reasons why child sexual abuse cases are an exception to the general three-year statute of limitations for civil cases.[15] As Benson’s experience illustrates, many survivors do not discover or appreciate the seriousness of the abuse until much later in life.[16] Most importantly, Part III explores why the Act does not align with Maryland’s well-established precedent against retroactive legislation and, therefore, likely risks being overturned by the Supreme Court of Maryland.[17]

Lastly, Part IV proposes how the Legislature can amend the Act to pass constitutional review.[18] This proposal includes a “look back window” where individuals can file a claim otherwise barred by the statute of limitations within a discreet, specified period.[19] This comment’s solution is carefully tailored to satisfy the due process demands of the Maryland Constitution while providing survivors of child sexual abuse a new avenue for relief and justice.[20]

II. Historical Background

A. An overview of the principle of statutes of limitation

A statute of limitation is “a statute establishing a time limit for suing in a civil case, based on the date when the claim accrued.”[21] Statutes of limitation encourage judicial integrity and economy by keeping courts from adjudicating stale claims when memories have faded, witnesses are dead or missing, and/or evidence is lost or weakened due to lapsed time.[22] Strict litigation time frames filter out fraudulent claims and allow defendants to effectively defend their cases with fresh evidence.[23] The limitation also ensures defendants can spend their lives without fear of a claim based on an event decades earlier.[24]

B. The “Me Too” Movement

The “Me Too” movement began in 2017 and inspired an unprecedented number of survivors to share their stories of sexual abuse.[25] The “Me Too” movement encouraged survivors to connect with others who had gone through similar trauma and life-altering experiences.[26] While the term “Me Too” was created by Tarana Burke in 2006, the “Me Too” movement did not gain widespread recognition and support until 2017 when actress Alyssa Milano encouraged survivors of sexual abuse and harassment to come forward on social media.[27] For the first time, survivors shared their stories in one place.[28] Within twenty-four hours, Milano’s “Me Too” tweet received twelve million responses on social media and sparked a movement that brought together millions of survivors of sexual violence from across the world.[29] In 2018, #MeToo tweets averaged 55,319 tweets a day.[30]

Shortly after Milano’s viral tweet, the sexual abuse scandal among Hollywood stars began when thirteen women alleged sexual assault and rape claims against movie producer Harvey Weinstein.[31] Every story sparked another individual to speak on their own experiences with sexual abuse and harassment.[32] These voices spread across Hollywood, uniting survivors from all different backgrounds, races, and ethnicities.[33] Over thirty celebrities – including Matt Lauer, Kevin Spacey, and Dustin Hoffman – faced accusations of sexual assault following the allegations against Harvey Weinstein.[34]

The “Me Too” movement expanded beyond Hollywood and impacted other workplaces and industries across the nation.[35] In 2018, the New York Times revealed that Google knowingly concealed a former employee’s suit against the company for sexual harassment.[36] Google paid the employee ninety million dollars to resign and keep quiet.[37] Similarly, Fox News settled for twenty million dollars with Gretchen Carlson, a news anchor who had filed a lawsuit against Roger Ailes, a former Fox News director, alleging that Ailes demoted her after she had denied his sexual advances.[38] Ford Motors, Kroger/Ralphs Grocery, and McDonald’s have all paid millions of dollars when settling with individuals who have filed sexual assault or harassment claims against the companies.[39]

As of 2022, five years after the “Me Too” movement gained massive support, twenty-two states and the District of Columbia passed over seventy workplace anti-harassment bills.[40] Some of the bills passed at the state level included the elimination of non-disclosure agreements, requirements for workplace harassment training, and prolongment of the statute of limitations for reporting sexual abuse.

C. Exposure of rampant child sexual abuse in the Catholic Church

States became more inclined to abolish or lengthen their statute of limitation periods for child sexual abuse claims with the rise of child sexual abuse allegations nationwide against organized religious institutions, most notably the Catholic Church.[41] As allegations of sexual abuse against the Catholic Church have skyrocketed, many adults are unable to seek justice for their enduring trauma due to strict statute of limitation periods.[42]

In June 2001, the Archbishop of Boston filed a routine court submission in response to numerous allegations of child sexual abuse contained in lawsuits against one of his former priests, Father John Geoghan.[43] This investigation, led by members of the Boston Globe, revealed over 10,000 pages of church documents containing eighty-four different, unreported lawsuits against Father Geoghan alone.[44] These journalists further unearthed information that this was far from the first time the Catholic Church had covered up incidents of sexual abuse within its institutions; this was a rampant cycle that spread across the nation and spanned decades.[45]

Within two years of the Boston Globe’s 800 articles revealing the child sex abuse scandal in the Catholic Church, Cardinal Law resigned,[46] 150 priests in Boston faced sexual abuse allegations, over 500 survivors filed sexual abuse claims, and church donations to the archdiocese dropped 50% percent.[47] In this same period, more than 450 priests and four bishops resigned nationwide, and several states began to take notice.[48]

At the state level, the Catholic Church scandal prompted numerous investigations aimed at uncovering child sex abuse that had or continues to occur within the institution. In 2005, the Diocese of Fort Worth, Texas released a list of priests accused of child sex abuse.[49] Then, in 2009, the Attorney General’s Office in New Hampshire conducted a five-year audit of the Diocese of Manchester and released a list of twenty-seven priests accused of child sexual abuse.[50] In 2018, a Pennsylvania Grand Jury published a report revealing 300 Catholic priests who had sexually abused 1,000 children for seven decades.[51] The Illinois Attorney General released a report in 2018 that described preliminary investigative findings that revealed six state dioceses that had failed to disclose 500 allegations of child sexual abuse against priests and clergy members.[52] The Illinois Attorney General released another report in 2023 finding that nearly 2,000 children were sexually abused by 451 clergy members between 1950 and 2019.[53] These reports inspired survivors to tell their stories and highlighted the glaring deficiencies in how the Church has handled such incidents.[54]

In 2018, the Maryland Office of the Attorney General commenced a grand jury investigation of the Archdiocese of Baltimore for criminal allegations of child sexual abuse and concealment efforts by the Catholic Church.[55] The Grand Jury of Baltimore City subpoenaed records from the Archdiocese, individual parishes, religious orders, and St. Mary’s Seminary.[56] The subpoena produced thousands of documents, including treatment reports, personnel records, transfer reports, and policies and procedures dating back to the 1940s.[57] Over 300 individuals contacted the Office about the Catholic Church and shared their horrific stories of priests sexually abusing children therein.[58] In April 2023, the Maryland Attorney General, Anthony Brown, released a report on the Archdiocese of Baltimore which listed the names of 156 abusers in the Catholic Church who had preyed upon innocent, vulnerable children.[59]

D. Maryland’s civil child sexual abuse statute of limitations

On October 21, 2023, Maryland passed the Child Victims Act.[60] This Act completely removed the civil statute of limitations for all claims of child sexual abuse.[61] Before 2003, the general rule for child sexual abuse claims required that the civil case be filed within three years of the minor reaching the age of majority.[62]

In 2003, Maryland enacted section 5-117 for child sex abuse cases, which extended the period a survivor could bring a claim from three years from the age of majority to seven years.[63] However, section 5-117 specifically prohibited retroactive application of the statute of limitations to causes of action that were already time-barred before the Act’s enactment.[64] This section was subsequently amended in 2017, extending the statute of limitations to twenty years after the survivor reached the age of majority or three years after the defendant’s conviction of a crime relating to the alleged abuse.[65] The uncodified language explicitly provided that the statute may not be construed to apply retroactively to revive an action previously barred.[66] In 2023, the Legislature amended section 5-117 again, ultimately passing the Child Victims Act, which repealed any prior statute of limitations and the statute of repose previously provided in its predecessor legislation.[67]

III. Issue: Child Sexual Abuse Claims Justify Special Statutory Rules, But Maryland Case Law Indicates That The Child Victims Act Is Constitutionally Vulnerable

A. The unique features of child sexual abuse cases warrant special statutory treatment.

Children are in especially unique positions that necessitate modified statutory rules.[68] When children are in sexually abusive situations, they are often unable to recognize that the conduct is wrong due to their age, living circumstances, and grooming by their abusers.[69] Abusers psychologically condition children into believing the abuse is normal.[70] Thus, children become overwhelmed with feelings of shame, embarrassment, confusion, trauma, and fear.[71]

Even if a child could recognize that the abuse is wrong, seeking assistance often poses emotional challenges and safety concerns,[72] especially when family members are the perpetrators of their sexual abuse.[73] 30-40% of abused children are abused by family members, and over 90% of abusers are individuals the child knows, loves, and trusts.[74] Abusers who are not family members include, but are not limited to: neighbors, parents’ friends, mothers’ boyfriends, babysitters, teachers, caregivers, coaches, and clergy.[75] When coming forward, children must weigh the risks of destroying their family structure or relationships with others against their own well-being.[76]

Children who are unable to terminate abuse often experience feelings of helplessness that are heightened when their abuser is one of their caretakers.[77] Their dependency on their abuser usually makes the escape from the abuse impossible, furthering their torment.[78] When children want to disclose their abuse, they are often threatened by acts of violence.[79] Children also face doubts by individuals who minimize, ignore, or blame them for the abuse.[80]

Many child victims enter adulthood without processing or disclosing their abuse.[81] Some adult survivors may never disclose their abuse during their childhood due to confusion, denial, and self-blame; others can do so after years of therapy.[82] When adult survivors come forward, they face overwhelming feelings of fear, guilt, shame, and embarrassment.[83] Due to this emotional turmoil, the average age of survivors when they report their child sex abuse is about fifty-two years old.[84] When adult survivors finally share their trauma and abuse, they are often unprepared for litigation that forces them to relive their nightmares.[85] The trauma from child sexual abuse also can impact the life trajectories of survivors well into adulthood.[86] Many adult survivors cope with long-lasting mental struggles, including, but not limited to: suicidal thoughts, addiction, dissociation, eating disorders, depression, and anxiety.[87]

i. Delayed discovery

The delayed discovery rule tolls a tort claim’s statute of limitation when the plaintiff discovers or should have reasonably discovered the elements that give rise to the claim.[88] This means that a survivor of child sexual abuse can bring an action against his or her abuser when the survivor obtains knowledge or should have obtained knowledge of the abuse.[89]

The discovery rule was first applied by the Supreme Court of the United States in Urie v. Thompson, holding that an individual’s negligence claim was not barred by the statute of limitations because the statute did not begin to toll until the plaintiff was diagnosed with the illness giving rise to his claim.[90] Furthermore, the Court held that the statute of limitations period did not begin until the plaintiff was diagnosed with silicosis resulting from his employer’s failure to protect its employees from continuous inhalation of silica dust while working on steam locomotives.[91] Based on the Urie analysis, the limitations period in child sexual abuse claims does not begin to run until the child reasonably discovers the abuse occurred.[92]

While the United States Supreme Court has recognized the delayed discovery rule, states differ on whether the delayed discovery rule applies in child sexual abuse cases.[93] Some states have held that the statute of limitations period tolls when the plaintiff discovers the nexus between the injury and the defendant’s conduct.[94] Other states have recognized that once the plaintiff becomes aware of the cause of the injury, the statute of limitations begins to run when the plaintiff knows the defendant’s conduct was wrongful or negligent.[95] Some states have refused to recognize the discovery doctrine in sexual abuse cases altogether due to the difficulty of deciphering when the plaintiff reasonably knew of the harm.[96]

ii. Memory Repression

The delayed discovery rule is particularly complicated when there is memory repression.[97] Whether courts should allow a cause of action in instances where the survivor represses the memory of the abuse as a psychological coping mechanism is inconsistent from state to state.[98] Research in both psychology and biology supports that repressing memories is a common coping mechanism for many children subject to sexual abuse and that these memories are not recovered until much later in their life.[99] Judith Herman, a Harvard psychiatrist, found that out of fifty-three women attending incest survivor groups, almost two-thirds reported partial or complete memory lapses after the abuse occurred.[100] Another study by John Briere, a psychiatrist at the University of Southern California School of Medicine, showed that the more violent and persistent the abuse was, the more likely the survivor would block the memory.[101] Most psychologists believe that children learn to repress traumatic sexual abuse memories as a survival mechanism.[102] Children mentally dissociate themselves in situations where they cannot physically escape the abuse.[103]

In 1987, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin ruled in Hammer v. Hammer that the discovery rule applied to a plaintiff who repressed memories of childhood abuse inflicted by her father and did not discover that the abuse had occurred until later in her life.[104] The court utilized information from her psychologist, which emphasized that the plaintiff was unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of the conduct at the time of the abuse because: (1) The abuse was perceived by the child as natural behavior; (2) Her abuser threatened her to secrecy; (3) She was told by her abuser that the conduct was normal; and (4) Her abuser was an authority figure (her father) whom she depended on and trusted.[105] The plaintiff developed various coping mechanisms that deemed her unable to perceive the wrongfulness of the abuse until long after the incidents of abuse had occurred.[106] The situation in Hammer reflects the power of memory repression and precisely illuminates why abused children require greater time to come forward with a claim against their abusers.

However, many states have barred survivors from bringing a suit despite memory repression until adulthood.[107] For example, in Sanchez v. Archdiocese of San Antonio, a Texas court held that a plaintiff was barred from bringing suit because the discovery rule did not apply to a plaintiff who knew of but repressed the memory of child sexual abuse.[108] Other courts adopted the Sanchez approach and found that plaintiffs who suspect they may have been harmed have a duty to investigate whether they have a valid cause of action within the required statutory time period.[109] While some states have accepted memory repression as a viable argument for delayed discovery, many do not due to the complications of applying the discovery rule.[110] Nevertheless, because memory repression is a common reality for several adult survivors, the court system should allow survivors a longer time frame to bring claims against their abusers.[111]

B. The constitutionality of retroactive legislation.

A retroactive civil statute imposes liability on individuals for past actions.[112] There is inconsistency among states on whether retroactive legislation extending a statute of limitations period is constitutional.[113] While some states have ruled that retroactive application of a law violates their state constitution by depriving defendants of a vested right, other states have held that retroactive application merely affects a procedural remedy.[114]

Arguments against retroactive legislation invoke the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, which prohibits states from taking the life, liberty, and property of their citizens without proper due process of the law.[115] Many defendants have successfully argued that the Due Process Clause includes the right to rely upon an affirmative defense of limitations in a civil suit.[116] Specifically, some defendants have argued that the right to rely on a statute of limitations defense is part of the liberty or property protected by the Due Process Clause.[117]

There are three approaches by states to explain the constitutionality of retroactive legislation extending the statute of limitations periods: (1) the federal approach, (2) the per se invalid approach, and (3) the mixed approach.[118] States following the federal approach believe retroactive legislation is constitutional.[119] States following the per se invalid approach prohibit the use of retroactive legislation.[120] Finally, states following the mixed approach evaluate the constitutionality within the context of the legislation, heavily relying on the legislative intent behind the enactments.[121]

The federal approach is rooted in Campbell v. Holt and Chase Securities Corp. v. Donaldson, where the United States Supreme Court ruled that a statute of limitations period is not a vested right for defendants under the Fourteenth Amendment.[122] Because the Fourteenth Amendment protects only substantive rights and not remedies, the statute of limitations falls outside the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment because it is merely a remedy.[123] As of 2015, fourteen states[124] align with the federal approach by allowing the retroactive expansion of a statute of limitation period to revive otherwise time-barred claims.[125]

Despite some states recognizing the federal approach for retroactive legislation, other states[126] deem retroactive legislation per se invalid because it violates a defendant’s right to due process.[127] Various states[128] have held that, as a matter of state constitutional law, the retroactive expansion of a civil statute of limitation period violates substantive due process rights by interfering with a vested right of the defendant.[129] Furthermore, some states interpret their constitutions as providing a defendant with a right to be free from suit once the statutory time period has expired.[130]

Wisconsin and New York adopted a mixed approach operating in between the federal approach and the per se invalid analyses.[131] The Court of Appeals of New York held that it is constitutional for the legislature to revive a cause of action if it reasonably determines exceptional circumstances resulting in serious injustice to the plaintiff.[132] The Supreme Court of Wisconsin recognized a vested right in the tolling of the statute of limitations but has still utilized the rational basis standard to assess whether a revival of a time-barred claim may be permissible.[133]

C. The Maryland Supreme Court will likely find the Child Victims Act unconstitutional.

The goal of the Child Victims Act is to revive claims of persons otherwise barred from filing suit due to the expiration of the statute of limitations.[134] However, applying a statute with this retroactive effect is likely unconstitutional because it violates a defendant’s due process right under Maryland law.[135] In Maryland, there is a general presumption that statutes operate prospectively.[136] In other words, there is a presumption against retroactive legislation.[137] A statute can overcome a presumption against retroactivity “only when the legislature clearly expresses an intent that the statute apply retroactively.”[138] When a court must resolve whether a statute can be applied retroactively, the court engages in a two-part analysis.[139] First, courts must examine the statutory language to determine whether the legislature intended the statute to have a retroactive effect.[140] If the court concludes that the legislative intent was to create a retroactive statute, then the court must examine whether the statute would violate a constitutional right or prohibition.[141]

The revisions to section 5-117(b) of the Maryland Courts and Judicial Proceeding Code state in relevant part:

Notwithstanding any time limitation under a statute of limitations, a statute of repose, the Maryland Tort Claims Act, the Local Government Tort Claims Act, or any other law, an action for damages arising out of an alleged incident or incidents of sexual abuse that occurred while the victim was a minor may be filed at any time.[142]

The language of section 5-117(b) allows a person to file suit regarding acts of child sexual abuse even if the statute of limitations had previously barred their action.[143] The legislature plainly meant to apply this statute retroactively; however, under Maryland law, the statute is likely unconstitutional.[144]

It is well-established law in Maryland that once a defendant “has survived the period set forth in a statute of limitations without being sued, a legislative attempt to revive the expired claim would violate the defendant’s right to due process.”[145] The legislature is only entitled to extend a statute of limitations when the statute has not yet expired for that claim.[146]

The Appellate Court of Maryland held that an extension of a statute of limitations period for claims that are not yet barred does not alter the defendant’s substantive right.[147] In Roe v. Doe, the plaintiff alleged she was sexually abused as a minor and reached the age of majority in late September 2001.[148] In 2001, she had the right to file a claim within three years.[149] In 2003, the General Assembly extended the time to bring a claim from three years to seven years, giving the plaintiff until late September 2008 to file her claim.[150] This was not a violation of the defendant’s due process right because the statute of limitations merely extended the time for the plaintiff’s claim which had not yet been barred.[151]

Similarly, the Appellate Court of Maryland ruled that a legislature may extend a statute of limitations period but cannot revive expired claims when the defendant has survived the period outlined in the statute.[152] In Rice v. University of Maryland Medical Systems, the plaintiff filed for medical malpractice but failed to attach a proper expert certificate.[153] This failure required the dismissal of the claim.[154] The plaintiff appealed and refiled their claim, to which the hospital moved to dismiss the refiled claim, arguing that the statute of limitations was expired.[155] The Appellate Court held that a legislative attempt to revive an expired claim violates the defendant’s due process right, but also noted that the General Assembly may extend a statute of limitations applying to a claim that has not yet expired.[156] During litigation, the General Assembly enacted a provision that extended the statute of limitations for the appellant; therefore, when the appellant refiled with the expert certificate, the appellant’s claim had not expired and did not infringe the vested right of the hospital.[157]

Roe and Rice not only establish that the General Assembly has the authority to extend the time to file a claim when a statute of limitations period has not yet run but also that the General Assembly may not revive a claim for which the statute of limitations period has already closed.[158] The Child Victims Act clearly revives claims whose statute of limitation periods have already closed, and therefore, will likely fail to pass constitutional review, specifically for claims where the statute of limitations has tolled.[159]

Some sister states of Maryland have recognized that a change in a statute of limitations period cannot be applied to revive claims previously barred under the previous limitations statutes.[160] When a statutory period is extended under a new law, the action brought is only valid if made before the cause of action is barred.[161] Furthermore, a lengthened statute of limitations can be applied to pre-existing claims so long as the new statute does not revive claims already barred.[162] Once a statute of limitations period has closed, a defendant has a vested right to be free from suit.[163]

As predicted, a circuit split in Maryland has emerged after two courts deemed the Child Victims Act constitutional, while one court ruled the Act unconstitutional.[164] Trial courts in Prince George’s County and Harford County found the Act constitutional, after which the defendants immediately appealed.[165] After, in April 2024, the Montgomery County Circuit Court ruled that the Child Victims Act was unconstitutional because the Act “retroactively abrogated the substance and vested rights of defendants.”[166] The circuit split ultimately brought the issue before the Supreme Court of Maryland on September 10, 2024, where the high court consolidated the cases for oral arguments on the constitutionality question.[167]

On September 10, 2024, Petitioners went before the Maryland Supreme Court, arguing that the Maryland Constitution precludes the General Assembly from retroactively reviving time-barred claims as said revival would violate the vested right of the defendants.[168] Petitioners based their argument on the 2017 statute’s language,[169] specifically the language referring to the statute as a statute of repose.[170] Petitioners argued that subsection (d) of the statute conferred a substantive vested right to defendants to be free from liability after the expiration of the 20-year period.[171] Respondents argued that the 2017 law was a statute of limitations, rather than a statute of repose,[172] and even if the 2017 law was a statute of repose, defendants did not have a vested right until the plaintiffs filed their claim in 2023.[173] It remains unclear whether the difference between a statute of limitations and a statute of repose will affect the Maryland Supreme Court’s decision regarding the constitutionality of the Act; however, the difference undeniably presents another hurdle for the Act.

IV. Solution: Maryland Must Amend the Child Victims Act To Survive Constitutional Review

While Maryland has not determined whether a revival of all child sexual abuse claims is a violation of the state constitution, Maryland’s case law demonstrates that the Supreme Court of Maryland will likely find the Act unconstitutional.[174] While the Act in its current form gives survivors a new avenue for relief, it fails to consider the relevant constitutional issues.[175] By ignoring Maryland’s case law, which sets forth a clear presumption against retroactive legislation, the Act is vulnerable to constitutional challenges.[176] The Act should be amended to preserve the intended rights of child sex abuse survivors and make the Act less constitutionally vulnerable.[177]

A. Recent precedent of other states applying a look back window should inform Maryland’s Legislature on child sexual abuse cases.

A “look back window” is a period where individuals can file claims that would otherwise be time-barred by the statute of limitations.[178] Some states enacted a look back window to deal with the influx of child sexual abuse cases in light of the “Me Too” movement and the Catholic Church crises.[179] To meet the constitutional requirements for statute of limitations periods while providing survivors with a new avenue for relief, states have since enacted their versions of the look back window.[180]

On February 14, 2019, New York signed the Child Victims Act into law, providing a one-year look back window for individuals previously barred from filing a claim against their abusers without statute of limitations restrictions.[181] The Act also allowed new survivors to bring a claim for child sexual abuse until they reach the age of fifty-five.[182] Previously barred individuals can bring claims during the look back window, which opened from August 14, 2019 to August 14, 2020.[183] From August 14, 2019, to October 31, 2019, nine hundred and seventy-five cases were filed alleging child sexual abuse.[184]

On December 1, 2019, New Jersey’s Child Victims Act opened a two-year look back window for individuals to assert a claim of child sexual abuse was enacted.[185] Additionally, the law expanded the statute of limitations to age fifty-five or until seven years from the time that an alleged victim became aware of his/her injury, whichever comes later.[186]  Forty-six cases were filed just within the first minute of the revival period.[187] After, California passed a new Child Victims Act, which opened a three-year look back window beginning on January 1, 2020.[188]

B. The Maryland legislature should pass a one-year look back window and expand the statute of limitations period moving forward.

Maryland law firmly establishes that it does not permit reviving claims previously barred by a statute of limitations period because doing so violates a defendant’s due process right.[189] The Child Victim’s Act must be altered to pass constitutional muster while still serving its ultimate goal of protecting survivors.[190] While a one-year look back window still revives claims previously barred, it minimizes due process concerns by limiting the scope of when previously barred claims can be revived. This affords a defendant a concrete period of when they could be sued. A discreet one-year look back window balances survivors’ right to seek redress against a defendant’s due process right, allowing survivors to have their day in court without completely stripping the defendant’s due process rights.

In addition to a one-year look back window, Maryland’s General Assembly should follow New Jersey’s statute of limitations period and allow individuals moving forward to bring a claim of child sexual abuse until the age of fifty-five or until seven years from the time that an alleged victim became aware of his or her injury, whichever comes later.[191] This statute provides survivors with more time whether they have repressed memories of the abuse, are struggling to tell their stories, or are in an environment where it is unsafe to speak up.[192]

Child sexual abuse survivors are forced to constantly relive their trauma in both their childhood and adulthood.[193] The inability to deal with such trauma prevents survivors from sharing their stories until decades later when they have developed troubling psychological coping mechanisms.[194] An amended act that creates a one-year look back window and extends the statutory period for child sexual abuse claims moving forward allows survivors to bring claims while respecting and maintaining the constitutional rights of the citizens of the State.[195]

While this solution may conflict with Maryland’s precedent providing that a defendant has a vested right in a statutory limitations period once the period has run, the unique complexity of child sexual abuse claims requires Maryland to recognize these claims as an exception.[196] By creating a one-year look back window, the legislature narrows the magnitude of the constitutional vulnerability, making it likely that the Supreme Court of Maryland would find the Act deserving of an exception to its usual presumption against retroactive legislation, i.e., constitutional. If the General Assembly amends the Act, they will ultimately assist the court in providing a new avenue of relief for survivors who were never given a chance to sue their abusers, holding them accountable.

V. Conclusion

The rise of the “Me Too” Movement, coupled with the recent exposure of decades of child sexual abuse within the Catholic Church, has made states reevaluate their statute of limitations periods for child sexual abuse cases.[197] States have begun to expand the statute of limitations periods, create look back windows, and/or abolish the statute of limitations altogether to provide justice to the many child sexual abuse survivors who have not been able to get relief in the court system.[198]

Children enduring child sexual abuse have minimal resources to escape or stop the abuse, are not in a position to use the legal system to seek justice for themselves, and often do not fully appreciate the nature of the abuse at the time.[199] Once these children reach adulthood, they must deal with the repercussions of the abuse that has completely shattered and overtaken their lives.[200] These challenges warrant special statutory rules.

Maryland’s presumption against retroactive legislation, plus its precedent that a defendant has a vested right in a statute of limitations period once it has tolled, makes the Act extremely susceptible to constitutional scrutiny.[201] To preserve the rights this Act wishes to provide to survivors while accounting for Maryland’s constitutional concerns, the Act must be amended. Even if the Supreme Court of Maryland finds the Act unconstitutional, the ruling would not preclude the General Assembly from adopting a more tailored approach that creates a limited lookback window, implicating the vested rights of a defendant to a much lesser degree. Maryland courts aim to support survivors of childhood sexual abuse.[202] Thus, the General Assembly must carefully tailor the Act to enable the courts to do so.

---

Raquel Hyatt is a third-year law student at the University of Baltimore, School of law and serves as the Resource Editor for Law Forum. Raquel received a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and Theatre from James Madison University, in Harrisonburg, Virginia. She currently works for Silverman, Thompson, Slutkin, and White, LLC. Raquel will graduate in May 2025 and hopes to pursue a career in litigation.

[1] William J. Ford, Survivor: Key School ‘Groomed’ Her and Other Students in Sexual Culture, Md. Matters (Dec. 1, 2023, 7:00 AM), https://marylandmatters.org/2023/12/01/survivor-key-school-groomed-her-and-other-students-in-sexual-culture/.

[2] Id.

[3] Id.

[4] Id.

[5] Id.

[6] See infra note 13.

[7] Ford, supra note 1.

[8] Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-117 (West).

[9] Id.

[10] See infra Sections II–V.

[11] See infra Section III.C.

[12] See infra Section II.

[13] This comment will use the word “survivor,” rather than “victim” to refer to an individual who was sexually abused as a child. “Survivor” is best suited to empower these individuals while giving them a sense of agency. It is not meant to suggest that individuals who experienced sexual abuse as a child have overcome the trauma of these incidents. Survivors deal with the repercussions of their abuse every day for the rest of their lives. See Should I Use the Term Victim or Survivor?, Kmd L. (May 11, 2022), https://www.kmdlaw.com/blog/2022/may/should-i-use-the-term-victim-or-survivor-/ (“Using the term survivor encourages others to see survivors as strong and capable individuals rather than victims of a crime.”).

[14] See infra Sections II.B–C.

[15] See infra Section III.A.

[16] See Ford, supra note 1.

[17] See infra Section III.C.

[18] See infra Section IV.

[19] See infra Section IV.A–B.

[20] See infra Section IV.B.

[21] Statute of Limitations, Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019).

[22] Chase Sec. Corp. v. Donaldson, 325 U.S. 304, 314 (1945); Heidi L. Neuendorf, The Judicial Impediment on Legislative Lawmaking in Stratmeyer v. Stratmeyer, 44 S.D. L. Rev. 115, 124-25 (1999).

[23] Neuendorf, supra note 22, at 124.

[24] Id. at 125.

[25] Holly Corbett, #MeToo Five Years Later: How the Movement Started and What Needs to Change, Forbes (Oct. 27, 2022, 12:02 PM), https://www.forbes.com/sites/hollycorbett/2022/10/27/metoo-five-years-later-how-the-movement-started-and-what-needs-to-change/?sh=5f88614d5afe.

[26] Id.

[27] Anna Brown, More Than Twice as Many Americans Support Than Oppose the #MeToo Movement, Pew Rsch. Ctr. (Sept. 29, 2022), https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2022/09/29/more-than-twice-as-many-americans-support-than-oppose-the-metoo-movement.

[28] Id.

[29] Corbett, supra note 25.

[30] Amy Brittain, Me Too Movement, Britannica (Nov. 10, 2023, 11:07 PM), https://www.britannica.com/topic/Me-Too-movement.

[31] Harvey Weinstein: How the Scandal Has Unfolded, BBC News (Feb. 24, 2023), https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-41594672.

[32] Corbett, supra note 25.

[33] Id.

[34] Andrew Clark, A Complete List of Celebrities Accused of Sexual Misconduct Since Harvey Weinstein, IndyStar (Nov. 21, 2017, 7:51 PM), https://www.indystar.com/story/news/2017/11/21/here-all-prominent-men-have-been-accused-sexual-misconduct-since-harvey-weinstein/881595001/.

[35] Brittain, supra note 30.

[36] Top 5 Large Corporations Sued for Sexual Harassment, Mathew & George Att’ys at L., https://www.caemployeelawyer.com/top-5-large-corporations-sued-for-sexual-harassment/ (last visited Nov. 13, 2023).

[37] Id.

[38] Id.

[39] Id.; see, e.g., Jennifer Elias, Google’s $310 Million Sexual Harassment Settlement Aims to Set New Industry Standards, CNBC (Sept. 29, 2020, 11:58 AM), https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/29/googles-310-million-sexual-misconduct-settlement-details.html (revealing that Google agreed in settlement negotiations to update its policies and procedures around sexual misconduct after a group of shareholders accused the leadership of the company of mishandling employee complaints of sexual misconduct); see also, e.g., Christopher Davis, Ford Motor Co. Employee Sues for Sexual Harassment, Working Sol. (Feb. 16, 2023), https://www.workingsolutionsnyc.com/blog/ford-motor-co-employee-sues-for-sexual-harassment (including a woman’s lawsuit against Ford Motor Co alleging wrongful termination when she was fired after filing numerous complaints to human resources of sexual harassment that went ignored).

[40] #MeToo Five Years Later: Progress & Pitfalls in State Workplace Anti-Harassment Laws, Nat’l Women’s L. Cent. (Oct. 4, 2022), https://nwlc.org/resource/metoo-five-years-later-progress-pitfalls-in-state-workplace-anti-harassment-laws/.

[41] See Ja’han Jones, Rampant Child Sexual Abuse Is Occurring in Churches- Not at Drag Shows, MSNBC (May 26, 2023, 11:27 AM), https://www.msnbc.com/the-reidout/reidout-blog/illinois-catholic-church-child-abuse-rcna86289.

[42] See Pat Crossley, Statute of Limitations for Child Abuse Cases is on the Periphery of State Agenda, Williamsport Sun-Gazette (Dec. 13, 2023), https://www.sungazette.com/news/top-news/2023/12/statute-of-limitations-for-child-abuse-cases-is-on-the-periphery-of-state-agenda/.

[43] Jon Henley, How the Boston Globe Exposed the Abuse Scandal that Rocked the Catholic Church, The Guardian (Apr. 21, 2010, 4:00 PM), https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/apr/21/boston-globe-abuse-scandal-catholic.

[44] Id.

[45] Id.

[46] See Emanuella Grinberg, Cardinal Bernard Law, Symbol of Church Sex Abuse Scandal, Dead at 86, CNN (Dec. 20, 2017 6:58 PM), https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/20/world/former-boston-cardinal-bernard-law-dead/index.html (illustrating that Cardinal Law was a Boston archbishop who helped cover up the child sexual abuse scandal within the church, including, but not limited to, Father Geoghan’s abuse).

[47] Henley, supra note 43.

[48] Id.

[49] Matt Keyser, Timeline: A History of Priest Sex Abuse in the Catholic Church, KHOU11 (Jan. 13, 2019, 10:14 PM), https://www.khou.com/article/news/nation-world/timeline-a-history-of-priest-child-sex-abuse-in-the-catholic-church/285-95a5c09f-cb56-40ee-be2a-9835cdff3e1c.

[50] Id.

[51] Id.

[52] Id.

[53] Jones, supra note 41.

[54] Henley, supra note 43 (emphasizing that the Boston Globe exposed the Catholic Church and empowered hundreds of survivors to come forward with their stories of child sexual abuse).

[55] Anthony Brown, Child Sexual Abuse in the Archdiocese of Baltimore, Md. Off. of the Att’y Gen., 1–3 (Apr. 2023), https://www.marylandattorneygeneral.gov/news%20documents/OAG_redacted_Report_on_Child_Sexual_Abuse.pdf (revealing 156 individuals who abused countless children in the Archdiocese of Baltimore as early as the 1940s).

[56] Id. at 1.

[57] Id.

[58] Id.

[59] Id.

[60] See S.B 686, 2023 Gen. Assemb., 445th Sess. (Md. 2023) (enacted); see also Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-117 (West).

[61] Id.

[62] Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-201(a) (West) (permitting a child to bring forth their claims of sexual abuse for three years after having reached the age of majority).

[63] See S.B. 68, 2003 Gen. Assemb., 417th Sess. (Md. 2003) (enacted) (“An action for . . . an alleged incident . . . of sexual abuse that occurred while the victim was a minor shall be filed within 7 years of the date that the victim attains the age of majority.”).

[64] Id. (“[T]his Act may not be construed to apply retroactively to revive any action that was barred by the application of the period of limitations applicable before October 1, 2003.”).

[65] See H.R. 642, 2017 Gen. Assemb., 437th Sess. (Md. 2017) (enacted) (“An action for . . . an alleged incident . . . of sexual abuse that occurred while the victim was a minor shall be filed within: (1) . . . before the victim reaches the age of majority; or (2) . . . within the later of: (i) 20 years after the date that the victim reaches the age of majority; or (ii) 3 years after the date that the defendant is convicted of a crime relating to the alleged incident . . . .”).

[66] Id.

[67] Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-117 (West).

[68] Erin Khorram, Crossing the Limit Line: Sexual Abuse and Whether Retroactive Application of Civil Statutes of Limitation Are Legal, 16 U.C. DAVIS J. JUV. L. & POL’Y 391, 403–04 (2012).

[69] Id. at 407; see, e.g., Survivors’ Voices, Breaking the Silence on Living with the Impact of Child Sexual Abuse in the Family Environment, One in Four, 16 (Nov. 2015), https://oneinfour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Survivors_Voices_Report_November_2015-2.pdf. [hereinafter Survivors’ Voices Report] (providing that Survivor Elizabeth believed her abuser “did what he did because he loved [her] too much and didn’t know how to show [her].”); see also Gary M. Ernsdorff & Elizabeth F. Loftus, Let Sleeping Memories Lie? Words of Caution About Tolling the Statute of Limitations in Cases of Memory Repression, 84. J. Crim. L. & Criminology 129, 136 (1993).

[70] See, e.g., Survivors’ Voices Report, supra note 69, at 20 (describing that a survivor thought that “contact of various natures with family members was normal.”).

[71] Id. at 24. (describing that Survivor Anon feels “ashamed, dirty, and disgusting,” recalling the sexual abuse she endured at the hands of her brothers as a young child).

[72] Khorram, supra note 68, at 403.

[73] Id.

[74] Child Abuse Statistics, Ind. Cent. for Prevention of Youth Abuse & Suicide, https://www.indianaprevention.org/child-abuse-statistics (last visited Mar. 18, 2023).

[75] Khorram, supra note 68, at 403.

[76] Id. at 403–04; see, e.g., Survivors’ Voices Report, supra note 69, at 15 (describing that when Survivor Elizabeth, a twelve-year-old girl, disclosed the sexual abuse perpetrated against her by a male family member, her abuser was charged with indecent assault; however, after her family asked her “do you know what you’re doing to the family, do you know what will happen to Mike if you do this—don’t do this to the family,” Elizabeth told the police she had lied about the assault, permitting her abuser to elude justice).

[77] Khorram, supra note 68, at 404.

[78] Id.; see, e.g., Survivors’ Voices Report, supra note 69, at 14 (categorizing Survivor Julie’s child sexual abuse as the “ultimate betrayal, as the very people that are supposed to love, nurture, and care for you are the ones who place you in a living nightmare.”).

[79] Khorram, supra note 68, at 404; see, e.g., Survivors’ Voices Report, supra note 69, at 20 (explaining that Survivor Dolores felt “very scared” of her abusers and “had been repeatedly threatened not to tell anyone.”).

[80] Khorram, supra note 68, at 404; see, e.g., Survivors’ Voices Report, supra note 69, at 12 (describing that survivor Amy was sexually abused by her uncle from the ages of six to nine years old, that “the abuse was disguised by love, affection, and secrecy,” and that “It took many therapists, personal development workshops and finally a friend to help me realize that what happened to me was not right and that it never should have happened.”); id. (explaining that Survivor Ann tried telling her mother what had happened but could not articulate the incident; moreover, her mother would dismiss whatever she did manage to share, causing “shame” to prevent her from speaking about it).

[81] See, e.g., Survivors’ Voices Report, supra note 69, at 24 (sharing Survivor Anon’s statement that the “effects of what happened have stayed with me, undealt with and unprocessed, throughout my life. The damages from my early years colored everything else at all stages of my life.”).

[82] Beverley Engel, Why Adult Victims of Childhood Sexual Abuse Don’t Disclose, Psych. Today (Mar. 6, 2019), https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-compassion-chronicles/201903/why-adult-victims-childhood-sexual-abuse-dont-disclose.

[83] David R. Katner, Delayed Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, the Kavanagh Confirmation Hearing, and Eliminating Statues of Limitation for Child Sexual Abuse Cases, 47 Am. J. Crim. L, 1, 2 (2020).

[84] Andrew Ortiz, Delayed Disclosure, A Factsheet Based on Cutting-Edge Research on Child Sex Abuse, Child USA (March 2020), https://childusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Delayed-Disclosure-2024.pdf (revealing that eighty-six percent of child sexual abuse goes unreported); see also Brown, supra note 55 (revealing that over half of child abuse survivors do not report abuse until over fifty years old).

[85] See Engel, supra note 82.

[86] See, e.g., Survivors’ Voices Report, supra note 69, at 16 (describing Survivor Jayne’s life-altering experience she had with childhood sexual abuse, specifically sharing that “what he did to me affected my whole life, every relationship, my personal identity, and the general trajectory of my life’s path. Childhood sexual abuse manifested in all aspects of my life.”).

[87] Id. at 29, 38 (reporting that Survivor Gerard dealt with anxiety, depression, anger, addictive tendencies, dissociation, and suicidal attempts throughout his life after he was sexually abused by his mother as a young child).

[88] Khorram, supra note 68, at 400.

[89] Id.

[90] Urie v. Thompson, 337 U.S. 163, 170 (1949).

[91] Id. at 169–71.

[92] Khorram, supra note 68, at 400-01.

[93] Id. at 401.

[94] Neuendorf, supra note 22, at 126.

[95] Id.

[96] Id.; see also Doe v. Maskell, 342 Md. 684, 695, 679 A.2d 1087, 1092 (1996) (noting that Maryland does not recognize delayed discovery for child sexual abuse claims).

[97] Khorram, supra note 68, at 405.

[98] Id.

[99] Id.; see, e.g., Survivors’ Voices Report, supra note 69, at 18 (explaining that Survivor Steve, who was abused from the ages of five to ten by his uncle, did not recover any memory of the abuse until he was forty-six years old, and that “main phase of remembering took two months, the snippets forming into four episodes at different ages.”).

[100] Khorram, supra note 68, at 405–06 (explaining that in the mid-1970s, a sociologist at the University of New Hampshire—Linda Williams—conducted a study that found more than one-third of the one hundred and twenty-nine women who were treated for child sexual abuse had no memory of the abuse or chose not to report the abuse).

[101] Id. at 406 (adding that children who experience sexual abuse are more likely to repress those memories when they are subjected to repeated abuse).

[102] Id.

[103] Id.

[104] Hammer v. Hammer, 418 N.W.2d 23, 26 (Wis. Ct. App. 1987).

[105] Id. at 25.

[106] Id.

[107] See Sanchez v. Archdiocese of San Antonio, 873 S.W.2d 87, 91–92 (Tex. Ct. App. 1994).

[108] Id. at 92.

[109] See, e.g., E.J.M. v. Archdiocese of Phila., 622 A.2d 1388, 1393–94 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1993) (rejecting the plaintiff’s argument that the statute of limitations had not yet tolled because the plaintiff did not recognize nor appreciate the childhood sexual assault as abuse until later in his life).

[110] Khorram, supra note 68, at 402-03.

[111] Id.

[112] Retroactive Law, Black Law’s Dictionary (11th ed. 2019).

[113] See Doe v. Hartford Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp., 119 A.3d 462, 508–11 (Conn. 2015).

[114] Id. at 510–11.

[115] Id. at 497–98.

[116] Id. at 510–11 (explaining that time-barred claims are per se invalid because they violate the defendant’s due process right).

[117] Khorram, supra note 68, at 421 (explaining that the right to be immune from suit once the statute of limitations has run is a vested property right of the defendant).

[118] Timothy J. Muyano, A Not so Retro Problem: Extending Statues of Limitations to Hold Institutions Responsible for Child Sexual Abuse Accountable under State Constitutions, 63 Vill. L. Rev. 47, 56–57 (2018).

[119] Id. (explaining that the Supreme Court has long held that retroactive legislation is constitutional); see also Campbell v. Holt, 115 U.S. 620, 628 (1885).

[120] Muyano, supra note 118, at 57.

[121] Id.

[122] See Campbell, 115 U.S. at 628; see also Chase Sec. Corp. v. Donaldson, 325 U.S. 304, 315–16 (1945).

[123] Campbell, 115 U.S. at 628.

[124] Hartford Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp., 119 A.3d at 509 (including Arizona, California, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New Jersey, North Dakota, Washington, and Wyoming).

[125] Id.

[126] Id. at 510 (including Alabama, Colorado, Missouri, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Texas).

[127] Id.

[128] Id. at 511 (including Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, Nebraska, North Carolina, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, and Virginia).

[129] Id.

[130] Hartford Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp., 119 A.3d at 511.

[131] Id. at 512.

[132] Id. at 511 (quoting Gallewski v. H. Hentz & Co., 93 N.E.2d 620, 624 (N.Y. 1950)).

[133] Muyano, supra note 118, at 67.

[134] See Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-117 (West).

[135] See Rice v. Univ. of Md. Med. Sys. Corp., 186 Md. App. 551, 563, 975 A.2d 193, 200 (2009).

[136] Washington Suburban Sanitary Comm’n v. Riverdale Heights Volunteer Fire Co., 308 Md. 556, 561, 520 A.2d 1319, 1322 (emphasizing that “retroactivity, even where permissible, is not favored and is not found, except upon the plainest mandate in the act.”).

[137] Roe v. Doe, 193 Md. App. 558, 563, 998 A.2d 383, 386 (2010).

[138] Id.

[139] Bornemann v. Bornemann, 175 Md. App. 716, 723, 931 A.2d 1154, 1158 (2007).

[140] Id.

[141] Id.

[142] Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-117 (West).

[143] Id.

[144] Id.; see also Rice v. Univ. of Md. Med. Sys. Corp., 186 Md. App. 551, 563, 975 A.2d 193, 200 (2009) (finding that retroactive legislation violates a defendant’s due process right).

[145] Rice, 186 Md. App. at 563, 975 A.2d at 200 (citing Smith v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 226 Md. 52, 57, 291 A.2d 452, 454 (1972)) (“When a defendant has survived the period set forth in the statute of limitations without being sued, a legislative attempt to revive the expired claim would violate the defendant’s right to due process.”).

[146] Id.

[147] Roe v. Doe, 193 Md. App. 558, 579, 998 A.2d 383, 395 (2010).

[148] Id. at 561, 998 A.2d at 385.

[149] Id. at 562, 998 A.2d at 385–86.

[150] Id. at 395, 998 A.2d at 384–86.

[151] Id. at 577, 998 A.2d at 394–95.

[152] Rice v. Univ. of Md. Med. Sys. Corp., 186 Md. App. 551, 563, 975 A.2d 193, 199–200 (2009).

[153] Id. at 553, 975 A.2d at 194.

[154] Id. at 552–553, 975 A.2d at 194.

[155] Id. at 553, 975 A.2d at 194.

[156] Id. at 563, 975 A.2d at 200.

[157] Id. at 566, 975 A.2d at 202.

[158] Rice, 186 Md. App. at 563, 975 A.2d at 200; see also Smith v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp, 266 Md. 52, 57, 291 A.2d 452, 455 (1972) (holding that any attempt to revive an expired claim violates a defendant’s due process right); but see Zitomer v. State, 21 Md. App. 709, 720, 321 A.2d 328, 334 (1974) (ruling that the legislature can extend a statute of limitations to any claim that has not yet expired).

[159] Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-117 (West).

[160] Roe v. Doe, 193 Md. App. 558, 577, 998 A.2d 383, 394–95 (2010).

[161] Id.

[162] Id.

[163] Id.

[164] Alex Mann, Child Victims Act Defended Lawmakers, Attorney General and More Back Measure in State’s High Court, Balt. Sun (Aug. 12, 2024), https://www.baltimoresun.com/2024/08/12/child-victims-act-maryland-supreme-court-briefs/.

[165] Id.

[166] Rachel Konieczny, Montgomery County Judge Dismisses Case Filed Under Child Victims Act as Unconstitutional, The Daily Rec. (Apr. 1, 2024), https://thedailyrecord.com/2024/04/01/montgomery-county-judge-dismisses-case-filed-under-child-victims-act-as-unconstitutional/.

[167] See Mann, supra note 164.

[168] See Reply Brief of the Petitioner-Appellant at 2; see also The Key School, Inc. v. Bunker No. 10 (4th Cir. Aug. 26, 2024).

[169] See H.B. 642, 2017 Gen. Assemb., 437th Sess. (Md. 2017).

[170] Statute of Repose, Black Law’s Dictionary (12th ed. 2024) (“A statute barring any suit that is brought after a specified time since the defendant acted (such as by designing or manufacturing a product), even if this period ends before the plaintiff has suffered a resulting injury.”); see also Anderson v. United States, 427 Md. 99, 118, 46 A.3d 426, 437–38 (2012) (explaining that “The purpose of a statute of repose is to provide an absolute bar to an action or to provide a grant of immunity . . . .” and “Statutes of repose differ from statutes of limitation in that the trigger for a statute of repose period is unrelated to when the injury or discovery of the injury occurs.”).

[171] Reply Brief of the Petitioner, supra note 168, at 3. “Statutes of repose confer a substantive right to be free from liability which vests at the expiration of the repose period and cannot be retroactively abrogated.” Id. at 21.

[172] “While it was labeled a statute of repose, the statute operates as a statute of limitations and should be treated as such.” Oral Argument at 46:05, The Key School, Inc. v. Bunker (2024).

[173] Reply Brief of the Petitioner, supra note 168, at 3.

[174] See supra Section III.C.

[175] See supra Section III.C.; see also Rice v. Univ. of Md. Med. Sys. Corp., 186 Md. App. 551, 563, 975 A.2d 193, 200 (2009) (holding that reviving a claim already barred by the statute of limitations violates a defendant’s constitutional due process right).

[176] See Rice, 186 Md. App. at 563, 975 A.2d at 200.

[177] See supra Section III.C.

[178] Kharis Lund, One or Many? Critiquing New York’s “Unfortunate Event” Test for Determining Occurrences in Light of the Passage of the New York Child Victims Act, 42 Cardozo L. Rev. 1077, 1080 (2021).

[179] Melissa L. Jampol & Yael Spiewak, New Jersey’s New Child Victims Act Expands Opportunity for Filing Abuse Claims and Removes Former Immunity for Non-Profit Organizations and Public Entities, Nat’l L. Rev. (Jan. 2, 2020), https://www.natlawreview.com/article/new-jersey-s-new-child-victims-act-expands-opportunity-filing-abuse-claims-and.

[180] Lund, supra note 178, at 1079.

[181] Id. at 1080.

[182] Id.

[183] Id. at 1081.

[184] Id. at 1080.

[185] Jampol, supra note 179.

[186] Id.

[187] Id.

[188] Id.

[189] Rice v. Univ. of Md. Med. Sys. Corp., 186 Md. App. 551, 563, 975 A.2d 193, 200 (2009).

[190] See supra Section III.C.

[191] Jampol, supra note 179.

[192] See generally Engel, supra note 82.

[193] See, e.g., Survivors’ Voices Report, supra note 69, at 25 (explaining that Survivor Anon’s abuse is “re-experienced” in persistent nightmares, paralyzing her body and constricting her throat, which prevent her from calling for aid); see also id. at 35 (providing that when Survivor Ann spoke directly to her abuser, she told them “you took more than my life, you took my life and made me pay the price. It would’ve been easier for me if you had physically murdered me, but the murder of one’s soul is intangible. I don’t know how I’m still alive.”).

[194] Survivors’ Voices Report, supra note 69, at 26 (describing that Survivor T.M., who was abused as a young child by her father, was unable to speak about the abuse for forty year).

[195] See Dua v. Comcast Cable of Md. Inc., 370 Md. 604, 633, 805 A.2d 1061, 1072 (2002) (articulating the consistency among Maryland courts in holding that a revival of an already barred cause of action is a violation of the defendant’s due process right).

[196] See Rice v. Univ. of Md. Med. Sys. Corp., 186 Md. App. 551, 563, 975 A.2d 193, 200 (2009) (displaying that while Maryland courts have yet to determine whether a look back window would violate a defendant’s due process right, the Maryland Supreme Court is likely to develop a justification to uphold this type of solution in the interest of protecting survivors while minimizing due process interference); see also, e.g., Irvin Jackson, Judge Finds Maryland Law Removing Time Limits for Child Sex Assault Claims Constitutional, About Lawsuits (Mar. 12, 2024), https://www.aboutlawsuits.com/judge-finds-maryland-law-child-sex-assault-constitutional/ (noting that Judge Bright indicated the “law was never intended or designed to protect those who committed child sexual assault from being held accounted for their actions, or lack thereof.”).

[197] See Jampol, supra note 179.

[198] Id.

[199] Khorram, supra note 68, at 407–08.

[200] Id. at 404–07.

[201] Rice, 186 Md. App. at 563, 975 A.2d at 200.

[202] See, e.g., Jackson, supra note 196.