Maryland lawmakers pass bill to try to limit liabilities for thousands of claims of sexual abuse
ANNAPOLIS, Md. (AP) — 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 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 only allow each claimant to receive one payment, instead of being able to collect for each incident of abuse.
Sen. Will Smith, who chairs the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee, said it has been estimated that the state 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, another 4,500 cases are known about, lawmakers said, and attorneys for plaintiffs have been in settlement discussions with Maryland Attorney General 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 said he doubted the provision in the bill that would limit someone to only sue for 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, a Republican, said. 'The people have had the right to file those cases.'
Smith told reporters on 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,' Smith 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 36-7 for the bill on Saturday, and the House voted 92-40 for the bill a short time later, sending the bill to the governor.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump vs. California
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. This is an edition of The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. Under Donald Trump, the federal government is like a bad parent: never there when you need him but eager to stick his nose in your business when you don't want him to. The relationship between Trump and California has always been bad, but the past few days represent a new low. On Friday, CNN reported that the White House was seeking to cut off as much federal funding to the Golden State as possible, especially to state universities. That afternoon, protests broke out in Los Angeles as ICE agents sought to make arrests. By Saturday, Trump had announced that he was federalizing members of the National Guard and deploying them to L.A., over the objections of Governor Gavin Newsom, a Democrat. Americans have seen the National Guard called out to deal with the aftermath of riots in the past, but its involvement over the weekend represents a dramatic escalation. The National Guard was deployed to L.A. in 1992, during riots after the acquittal of four police officers in the beating of Rodney King. The scale of the destruction in that instance, compared with scattered violence in L.A. this weekend, helps show why Trump's order was disproportionate. (National Guard troops were also deployed in Minneapolis during protests after the murder of George Floyd, at the request of Governor Tim Walz. Trump has falsely claimed that he deployed the troops when Walz wouldn't.) In all of these recent cases, however, governors have made the call to bring out the National Guard. A president has not done so since 1965, when Lyndon Johnson took control of the Alabama National Guard from the arch-segregationist Governor George Wallace and ordered it to protect civil-rights leaders' third attempt to march from Selma to Montgomery. The situations aren't even closely analogous. Johnson acted only after local leaders had demonstrated that law enforcement would violently attack the peaceful marchers. By contrast, the Los Angeles Police Department and the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department have plenty of experience and sufficient man power to deal with protests of the weekend's size, and military forces are a riskier choice because they aren't trained as police. This morning, Newsom said he will sue the administration over the deployment. Elizabeth Goitein, a scholar at the Brennan Center for Justice who has written extensively in The Atlantic about the abuse of presidential emergency powers, told The Washington Post that Trump's order 'is completely unprecedented under any legal authority.' 'The use of the military to quell civil unrest is supposed to be an absolute last resort,' she added. Trump is doing this, as my colleague Tom Nichols writes, because he wants to provoke a confrontation with California. The president sees tough immigration enforcement as a political winner, but he also wants to use the face-off to expand the federal government's power to control states. Trump's vision is federalism as a one-way street: If states need help, they might be on their own, but if states believe that federal intervention is unnecessary or even harmful, too bad. If the president wants to shut off funds to states for nothing more than political retribution or personal animus, he believes that he can do that. (A White House spokesperson told CNN that decisions about potential cuts were not final but said that 'no taxpayer should be forced to fund the demise of our country,' a laughably vague and overheated rationale.) If states have been struck by major disasters, however, they'd better hope they voted for Trump, or that their governors have a good relationship with him. Some of these attempts to strong-arm states are likely illegal, and will be successfully challenged in court. Others are in gray areas, and still others are plainly legal—manifestations of what I call 'total politics,' in which officials wield powers that are legal but improper or unwise. This is a marked shift from the traditional American conservative defense of states' rights. Although that argument has often been deployed to defend racist policies, such as slavery and segregation, the right has also argued for the prerogative of local people to stave off an overweaning federal government. Conservatives also tended to view Lyndon Johnson as a boogeyman, not a role model. Kristi Noem, now the secretary of Homeland Security, bristled at the idea of federalizing the National Guard just last year, when she was serving as governor of South Dakota. But Trump's entire approach is to centralize control. He has pursued Project 2025's plan to seize new powers for the executive branch and to establish right-wing Big Government, flexing the coercive capacity of the federal government over citizens' lives. Tom Homan, Trump's border czar, has suggested that he wouldn't hesitate to arrest Newsom, and Trump endorsed the idea today. And Trump allies have proposed all sorts of other ways to force state governments to comply, such as cutting off Justice Department grants or FEMA assistance for states that don't sign up to enforce Trump's immigration policies, an issue where state governments do not traditionally have a role. This duress is not limited to blue states. Just last week, under pressure from the DOJ, Texas agreed to trash a 24-year-old law (signed by then-Governor Rick Perry, who later became Trump's secretary of energy) that gives in-state college tuition to some undocumented immigrants. If nothing else, the Trump era has given progressives a new appreciation for states' rights. Democrat attorneys general have become some of the most effective opponents of the Trump White House, just as Republican ones battled the Obama and Biden administrations. On Friday, Newsom mused about California withholding federal taxes. This is plainly illegal, but you can see where he's coming from: In fiscal year 2022, the state contributed $83 billion dollars more to the federal government than it received. If California is not getting disaster aid but is getting hostile deployments of federal troops, Californians might find it harder to see what's in it for them. No wonder one poll commissioned by an advocacy group earlier this year found that 61 percent of the state's residents thought California would be better off as a separate nation. Secession isn't going to happen: As journalists writing about aspiring red-state secessionists in recent years have noted, leaving the Union is unconstitutional. But the fact that these questions keep coming up is a testament to the fraying relationship between the federal government and the states. Trump's recent actions toward California show why tensions between Washington and the states are likely to get worse as long as he's president. Related: David Frum: For Trump, this is a dress rehearsal. Tom Nichols: Trump is using the National Guard as bait. Here are three new stories from The Atlantic: An uproar at the NIH The real problem with the Democrats' ground game Where is Barack Obama? Today's News President Donald Trump's travel ban is in effect, affecting nationals from 19 countries. Israel intercepted a high-profile aid ship en route to Gaza and detained those on board, including the activist Greta Thunberg. They have been brought to the Israeli port of Ashdod, according to Israel's foreign ministry. Officials from America and China met in London for a second round of trade-truce negotiations. Dispatches The Wonder Reader: Summer is heating up. Isabel Fattal compiles stories about an invention that changed the course of human life: the AC unit. Explore all of our newsletters here. Evening Read What's So Shocking About a Man Who Loves His Wife? By Jeremy Gordon The first time that someone called me a 'wife guy,' I wasn't sure how to react. If you are encountering this phrase for the first time and think wife guy surely must mean 'a guy who loves his wife,' you would be dead wrong. The term, which rose to popularity sometime during the first Trump administration, describes someone whose spousal affection is so ostentatious that it becomes inherently untrustworthy. 'The wife guy defines himself,' the critic Amanda Hess has written, 'through a kind of overreaction to being married.' The wife guy posts a photo of his wife to Instagram along with several emojis of a man smiling with hearts in place of his eyes. He will repeat this sort of action so many times that even his closest friends may think, Enough already. Read the full article. More From The Atlantic The Democrats have an authenticity gap. The Wyoming hospital upending the logic of private equity Helen Lewis: The Trump administration's nasty campaign against trans people Culture Break Read. These six books are great reads for anybody interested in the power of saying no. Examine. Money is ruining television, Sophie Gilbert writes. Depictions of extreme wealth are everywhere on the small screen, and, well, it's all quite boring. Play our daily crossword. P.S. My colleague Katherine J. Wu's latest wrenching dispatch from the dismantling of the federal scientific establishment was published today. Katherine writes about a letter from more than 300 National Institutes for Health officials criticizing the NIH's direction in the past few months. One official, who both signed the letter and spoke with Katherine anonymously, told her, 'We're just becoming a weapon of the state.' The official added, 'They're using grants as a lever to punish institutions and academia, and to censor and stifle science.' That quote struck me because it dovetails directly with the mindset that Trump demonstrates in his dealing with the states: Parts of the federal government are most valuable to him when they can be used not to provide services to citizens, but to serve as a cudgel. — David Stephanie Bai contributed to this newsletter. When you buy a book using a link in this newsletter, we receive a commission. Thank you for supporting The Atlantic. Article originally published at The Atlantic
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Dozens of environmental groups sign letter opposing return of Utah public lands sale
People rally in opposition of Utah's lawsuit attempting to take control of federal lands at the Capitol in Salt Lake City on Saturday, Jan. 11, 2025. (Photo by Spenser Heaps for Utah News Dispatch) Organizations from around the country signed a letter on Monday urging U.S. senators not to include a controversial proposal to sell thousands of acres of federal land in Congress' budget bill. The letter comes in the wake of reports that Utah Sen. Mike Lee is considering reviving an amendment to the bill originally proposed by Rep. Celeste Maloy that would dispose of nearly 11,500 acres of Bureau of Land Management land in southwestern Utah, and about 450,000 acres in Nevada. Lee, when asked by a Politico reporter last week if he intended to reintroduce the disposal, responded, 'I gotta go vote, but yes.' SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX Lee's office did not respond to a request for comment on Monday, and it's unclear whether Utah's senior GOP senator is considering bringing back an exact copy of Maloy's amendment, or something different. But more than 100 organizations and nonprofits around the country are sounding the alarm, telling Senate leaders to 'heed how dramatically unpopular this idea is and reject any misguided attempt to get public lands sales back in this bill.' 'Decisions about the future of public lands should remain in public hands. Leaders in the House and Senate, extractive industry, and private developers are using the reconciliation process to sell off federal lands to pay for billionaire tax cuts. But such moves are deeply unpopular. Polling has repeatedly shown that the public — especially westerners — strongly believes in keeping public lands in public hands and, across partisan lines, rejects any efforts that would lead to the sale of these shared and cherished lands,' reads the letter, signed by Utah groups like the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, Conserve Southwest Utah, Save Our Canyons, Great Basin Water Network and Back Country Horsemen of Utah. Public lands sale may return to 'big, beautiful' bill with Mike Lee amendment The letter is addressed to Lee, who chairs the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, New Mexico Democrat Martin Heinrich, the committee's ranking member, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, a South Dakota Republican, and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat. Maloy's amendment was dropped from the budget bill after it received pushback from all sides of the aisle. That includes Montana Republican Rep. Ryan Zinke, who previously said selling public lands is a line he would not cross and rallied support from a bipartisan group of lawmakers to strip the proposal from the bill. 'The public had no opportunity to participate in the process of identifying these parcels, let alone time to understand the long-term effect of selling off these public lands,' the letter reads. Maloy's proposal identified parcels owned by the Bureau of Land Management to sell to Washington and Beaver counties, the Washington County Water Conservancy District and the city of St. George. The land would have been used for water infrastructure (like reservoirs and wells), an airport expansion in St. George, new and widened roads, recreation and housing. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
S.C. senator attempt to stop state lawmaker pay increase
COLUMBIA, S.C. (WSPA) – A legal battle is underway over state lawmakers giving themselves more money. One senator said the way it was done is unconstitutional, but the lawmaker who pushed for the increase the state's new budget, lawmakers voted to more than double their in-district compensation, increasing it from around $1,000 a month to $2,500 a month. The move was led by Republican Senator Matt Leber (R – Charleston), who said it's not a pay raise but a reimbursement to help public servants cover travel and district costs. Leber sponsored a bill that had the same language and said he will try to pass the bill in January. He said lawmakers have not gotten a raise in in-district expense since 1994, and they need to adjust for inflation. Therefore, he said it's not a salary raise. 'If we don't make this at least affordable for the everyday person to run for office, then we're not going to get the everyday person to run for office,' Leber said. 'It's just going to be elites up there running everything, and they love this argument. ' Not everyone agrees on the decision. '$1,000 a month arrives in legislators bank accounts via direct deposit. There are no receipts required to submit for reimbursement. It's just $1,000 deposit into the account. Legislators are free to expend those funds however they deem appropriate,' said Senator Wes Climer (R – York). The increase was passed as an amendment to the budget and Climer said it wasn't the right way to do it. 'Regardless of how you feel about a legislative pay raise, this is the wrong way to do it. Violate the principle that the legislature cannot take the people's money and appropriate it to themselves in real time,' Climer added.'The proviso method is there for us to use more difficult for the current crop of legislators to continue to work. I felt like it was right to go for it now. ' Climer is now suing the State Treasurer's Office, and said the South Carolina Constitution bans lawmakers from increasing their own compensation before an election. He and retired Senator, Dick Harpootlian, have asked the South Carolina Supreme Court to step in, arguing the vote violates the state constitution. 'We are standing here and have filed the suit in order to protect or to defend the constitutional safeguards against the general assembly,' Climer added. Governor Henry McMaster chimed in on the issue last week. 'They are the ones that are trying to pay those expenses. In good faith, if they use that money for the in-district expenses as they're supposed to, then if that amount is legitimate, then that's a proper law,' McMaster said. The South Carolina Supreme Court has issued a scheduling order requiring the state to respond to the injunction request by next Monday. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.