logo
Maryland lawmakers pass bill to limit future liabilities amid thousands of claims of sexual abuse

Maryland lawmakers pass bill to limit future liabilities amid thousands of claims of sexual abuse

ANNAPOLIS, Md. — Maryland lawmakers passed a measure Saturday to try to limit future liabilities from claims of sexual abuse at state and private institutions after thousands of people unexpectedly came forward with allegations of abuse, many of them in youth detention centers, putting potentially billions of dollars at stake for the state.
The wave of cases targeting the state's juvenile justice system resulted after Maryland eliminated the statute of limitations for child sexual abuse claims two years ago with the Catholic Church abuse scandal in mind.
The action comes as Los Angeles County has announced it plans to pay $4 billion to settle nearly 7,000 claims of childhood sexual abuse that allegedly occurred inside its juvenile facilities and foster homes, in what would be the largest sex abuse settlement in U.S. history.
The Maryland measure, which now goes to Gov. Wes Moore, reduces caps on settlements from $890,000 to $400,000 for cases filed after May 31 for state institutions and from $1.5 million to $700,000 for private institutions. It also changes the 2023 law to allow each claimant to receive only one payment, instead of being able to collect for each incident of abuse.
State Sen. Will Smith, who chairs the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee, said it has been estimated that Maryland is facing a potential liability between $3 billion and $4 billion.
Smith, a Democrat, noted that lawmakers approved the 2023 Child Victims Act in response 'to a long fight to have justice for victims of child sex abuse, where our prior framework barred some of those claims if you were above the age of 38.'
'But what we could never have anticipated was just the sheer volume of cases that ensued,' Smith said.
During debate Saturday, lawmakers said about 1,500 cases already have been filed. In addition, 4,500 other cases have come to light, lawmakers said, and attorneys for plaintiffs have been in settlement discussions with Maryland Atty. Gen. Anthony Brown's office.
Sen. Justin Ready, a Republican who is the Senate minority whip, said the state liability could potentially be even higher than the estimate cited by Smith.
'We just spent all session wrestling with a $3-billion deficit, which is a huge deficit, and we've been fighting about that and debating it discussing it. … Just one settlement from this very well could end up being that entire amount, and that is not the end of this,' Ready said.
Sen. Chris West, a fellow Republican, said he doubted the provision in the bill that would limit someone to sue for only one individual case, rather than for each incident of abuse, would survive a court challenge, based on prior rulings by the Maryland Supreme Court.
'If the Supreme Court follows the guidance of prior Supreme Court decisions, they will hold that our attempt to deny people the right to file cases to recover for multiple occurrences is unconstitutional, because those rights for the past two years have been vested,' West said. 'The people have had the right to file those cases.'
Smith told reporters Friday that he believed a settlement 'is the optimal solution here.'
'We're hoping that the attorney general and the plaintiffs can get together and work out a settlement,' he said.
Maryland lawmakers passed the Child Victims Act in the immediate aftermath of a scathing investigative report by the attorney general's office that revealed widespread abuse within the Archdiocese of Baltimore. Before its passage, victims couldn't sue after they turned 38. The law change prompted the archdiocese to file for bankruptcy to protect its assets.
The Maryland Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the law in a 4-3 ruling in February.
The measure approved Saturday also would cap attorneys' fees at 20% for cases that settle out of court and 25% for cases resolved in court.
The Senate voted 36 to 7 for the bill on Saturday, and the House voted 92 to 40 in favor a short time later, sending the bill to the governor.
Witte writes for the Associated Press.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

After vowing ‘90 deals in 90 days,' the White House's rhetoric runs into reality
After vowing ‘90 deals in 90 days,' the White House's rhetoric runs into reality

Yahoo

time29 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

After vowing ‘90 deals in 90 days,' the White House's rhetoric runs into reality

Donald Trump clearly wants the public to believe he recently struck a trade deal with China. The president did not actually reach such an agreement, but he's leaned into his fictional narrative with great enthusiasm lately. Last Thursday, for example, the Republican published an item to his social media platform, noting that he'd spoken to Chinese President Xi Jinping about 'the intricacies of our recently made, and agreed to, Trade Deal.' Soon after, during an Oval Office event, he again touted the same 'trade deal.' A day later, Trump posted a follow-up item, announcing the members of a delegation who would travel to London to meet with Chinese officials about 'the Trade Deal.' The bad news is that the 'trade deal' in question does not exist, no matter how many times the American president pretends otherwise. The good news is that administration officials will actually have some discussions with their Chinese counterparts. NBC News reported: Senior U.S. and Chinese officials will meet in London on Monday in an effort to de-escalate the bitter trade dispute between the world's two biggest economies that has roiled the global economy, with China's restrictions on critical minerals high on the agenda. About a month ago, Trump announced what he characterized as a 'deal' with China, but the closer one looked at the details, the more the truth came into focus. Georgetown University professor Abraham Newman wrote a great piece for MSNBC that explained, "While the U.S. did avoid a major economic calamity, this is not a deal. The U.S. blinked. ... Far from some diplomatic coup, the U.S. climb down reflects the economic risks of maintaining such high tariffs.' The editorial board of The Wall Street Journal came to the same conclusion, noting, '[T]he China deal is more surrender than Trump victory.' Complicating matters, while the White House and Beijing reached a tentative agreement that paused the two countries' tit-for-tat tariffs, both countries have since accused each other of violating the agreement. All of which brings to mind Peter Navarro, the White House's top trade adviser, who boasted in April, 'We're going to run 90 deals in 90 days.' Navarro added that such a plan 'is possible' in part because 'the boss is going to be the chief negotiator.' Roughly two months later, the grand total currently stands at zero. Generous observers might be inclined to give Trump credit for striking a deal with the U.K., but as The Washington Post's Dana Milbank summarized in his latest column, that deal is really more of a 'vaguely phrased framework with Britain that still hasn't been made public.' What's more, a new Politico report added that a month after the agreement was announced, the U.S.-U.K. duties 'remain in place' and 'there is still no clear timeline for when they'll lift.' Or to put it another way, two-thirds of the way into the '90 deals in 90 days' vow, the White House appears to be 90 deals short. Undeterred, Navarro returned to Fox Business late last week, where he was asked when the public should expect to see some breakthroughs. 'We will have deals,' Navarro said. 'It takes time. Usually, it takes months and years. In this administration, it's gonna take more like days.' On average, the typical timeframe for a U.S. trade deal is roughly 30 months. That didn't deter Navarro from pushing the '90 deals in 90 days' talking point in April, and it apparently didn't stop him from claiming again last week that Team Trump will produce amazing results in a matter of days. The White House's top trade adviser should be going out of his way right now to lower expectations after already having set an impossibly high bar. For reasons unknown, Navarro is doing the opposite, setting up the Trump administration for additional failure. This article was originally published on

Democrats have a dirty secret - they actually like some of the tax cuts in Trump's ‘big beautiful bill'
Democrats have a dirty secret - they actually like some of the tax cuts in Trump's ‘big beautiful bill'

Yahoo

time29 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Democrats have a dirty secret - they actually like some of the tax cuts in Trump's ‘big beautiful bill'

Some of the sweeping tax cuts proposed in President Donald Trump's massive spending package have found support among Democrats — even as they are expected to oppose the legislation over proposed cuts to Medicaid and other government services when it comes up for debate in the Senate later this month, according to a new report. The gargantuan budget package, which House Republicans and the White House have dubbed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, passed the House by a single vote last month and is now drawing heat from fiscal hawks in both chambers as well as Tesla CEO Elon Musk, who was fresh off his months-long stint as a special government employee when he began threatening to back challengers to any legislator who votes for the bill. Still, there are facets of the proposal that have appeal for some Democrats, the New York Times reports. Virginia Rep. Don Beyer, a Democrat who is also a wealthy car dealership owner, told the Times his party is 'in general very much in favor of reducing taxes on working people and the working poor' when asked about Trump's plan to end taxes on service workers' tips. 'Those people are living on tips,' he added. Trump's tip tax cut plan has also attracted attention from Sen. Jacky Rosen of Nevada, a state where service workers make up a large and powerful voting bloc that has traditionally supported Democrats but shifted to Trump in large numbers during the 2024 presidential election, handing him the Silver State's electoral votes. Rosen, a Democrat, took to the Senate floor last month to advance a bill approving Trump's 'no tax on tips' plan. It passed unanimously even though the measure was largely symbolic because the U.S. constitution requires tax laws to originate in the House 'I am not afraid to embrace a good idea, wherever it comes from,'. she said at the time in remarks on the Senate floor. Yet despite the support for some of the individual tax provisions in the plan, it's highly unlikely that it will be able to muster enough if any Democrats to ease the way to Trump's desk, even under a Senate procedure known as budget reconciliation, which fast-tracks some types of spending legislation without subjecting it to the upper chamber's de facto 60-vote threshold for passage. Democrats are expected to unanimously vote against the legislation in the upper chamber, where it has also attracted opposition from some Republicans who've complained that the cuts to spending in the package don't go far enough to offset the reduced revenue caused by provisions meant to enact Trump campaign promises to end taxes on tips for service workers, as well as taxes on overtime pay for hourly workers and on social security benefits for seniors. Nonpartisan experts such as those at the Congressional Budget Office have warned that the reduced tax receipts would blow a massive hole in the federal budget and jeopardize America's long-term fiscal outlook, but that hasn't stopped some prominent Democrats from getting behind the individuals tax cuts. Trump and his allies hope the prominent tax cut proposals will blunt Democrats' efforts to paint the One Big Beautiful Bill Act as a giveaway to wealthy GOP donors that will gut government services while only providing limited relief for working-class voters. To that end, the president and others in his camp have routinely taken to social media to argue that anyone who votes against the bill is effectively voting for tax increases because the legislation makes permanent a number of temporary tax cuts enacted in the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which Trump signed into law during his first term. Democrats, meanwhile, remain opposed to the bill's massive cuts to Medicare and other measures that make it harder for people to claim tax credits meant to boost lower-income Americans' bottom lines. Rep. Brad Schneider, an Illnois Democrat, told the Times that the whole bill had to be considered rather than any individual provision or provisiosn. 'Any one thing — a tax credit or a tax cut — might make sense, but you've got to take a look at the whole picture,' he said.

Trump Continues Inflaming L.A. Protests: ‘BRING IN THE TROOPS!!!'
Trump Continues Inflaming L.A. Protests: ‘BRING IN THE TROOPS!!!'

Yahoo

time29 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Trump Continues Inflaming L.A. Protests: ‘BRING IN THE TROOPS!!!'

President Donald Trump called for the military to be deployed against anti-Immigrations and Customs Enforcements (ICE) protests in Los Angeles, California. The protests, which began in response to ICE raids at various workplaces on Friday, escalated over the weekend after Trump ordered the deployment of 2,000 National Guard troops into the city over the objections of Mayor Karen Bass and California Governor Gavin Newsom, both Democrats. 'Looking really bad in L.A. BRING IN THE TROOPS!!!' Trump wrote early Monday morning on Truth Social. In another post, the president called for law enforcement to 'ARREST THE PEOPLE IN FACE MASKS, NOW!' U.S. Northern Command issued a statement on Sunday indicating that 'approximately 500 Marines from 2nd Battalion, 7th Marines at Twentynine Palms, California, are in a prepared to deploy status should they be necessary to augment and support the DoD's protection of federal property and personnel efforts.' The call from the president to deploy the military against U.S. citizens — a power that hasn't been invoked by a president since the 1992 Rodney King riots in Los Angeles — would be a serious escalation of federal involvement in what local authorities say remains a manageable, if in sporadic instances violent, outbreak of public protest. Some Republican lawmakers and Trump administration officials have indicated their support for the deployment of military personnel to California. On Sunday night, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) shared a screenshot of a controversial opinion piece he wrote in 2020 calling for the military to be deployed against Black Lives Matter protests. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth wrote on social media Sunday night that 'if violence continues, active duty Marines at Camp Pendleton will also be mobilized — they are on high alert.' The president and his administration have targeted Los Angeles and several other so-called 'sanctuary cities' — cities and other state or local jurisdictions that limit its cooperation with federal immigration enforcement — as sites to conduct highly publicized ICE raids on immigrant communities. While the administration claims that they are focusing enforcement actions on criminals, Acting ICE Director Tom Homan admitted on Monday that ICE has been sweeping up migrants who just so happened to be at the location of one of their targets, including mothers, high school students, and migrants arriving to immigration court for scheduled hearings. As the administration's enforcement actions grow in intensity, and stray from the bounds of legality, Trump and his allies have claimed protests against their increasingly authoritarian tactics are effectively an illegal impediment to federal operations. 'A once great American City, Los Angeles, has been invaded and occupied by Illegal Aliens and Criminals. Now violent, insurrectionist mobs are swarming and attacking our Federal Agents to try and stop our deportation operations,' Trump wrote on Sunday in a post that bears little resemblance to what is actually happening in the city. 'Order will be restored, the Illegals will be expelled, and Los Angeles will be set free.' In a Sunday press conference, Mayor Bass said that 'what we're seeing in Los Angeles is chaos that has been provoked by the administration.' 'When you're at Home Depot and workplaces, when you tear parents and children apart, and when you run armored caravans to our streets you cause fear and you cause panic and deploying federalized troops is a dangerous escalation,' Bass said. 'We need to be real about this, this is about another agenda, it's not about public safety.' Bass added that the city remained committed to protecting the First Amendment rights of protesters, but that those legal protections 'do not give you the right to be violent to create chaos are to be violent to create chaos are to vandalize property.' Governor Newsom formally requested on Sunday that Trump revoke his federalization of the National Guard and withdraw them from the city. 'In dynamic and fluid situations such as the one in Los Angeles, State and local authorities are the most appropriate ones to evaluate the need for resources to safeguard life and property. Indeed, the decision to deploy the National Guard, without appropriate training or orders, risks seriously escalating the situation,' he wrote. 'There is currently no need for the National Guard to be deployed in Los Angeles, and to do so in this unlawful manner and for such a lengthy period is a serious breach of state sovereignty that seems intentionally designed to inflame the situation,' Newsom added. More from Rolling Stone Finneas Says He Was Tear-Gassed During 'Very Peaceful' ICE Protest in L.A. ABC News Suspends Journalist for Calling Stephen Miller and Trump 'World-Class Haters' Republicans Say They're Cool With Trump Deploying Troops Against Protesters Best of Rolling Stone The Useful Idiots New Guide to the Most Stoned Moments of the 2020 Presidential Campaign Anatomy of a Fake News Scandal The Radical Crusade of Mike Pence

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store