Federal lawsuit adds to allegations of child sexual abuse in Maryland youth detention centers
BALTIMORE (AP) — A federal lawsuit could open a new chapter in an escalating legal battle in Maryland, where officials are struggling to address an unexpected onslaught of claims alleging child sexual abuse in state-run juvenile detention facilities.
With thousands of similar claims already pending in state court, the litigation has raised questions about how Maryland will handle the potential financial liability.
The new federal suit, filed Wednesday on behalf of three plaintiffs, seeks $300 million in damages — an amount that far exceeds caps imposed on claims filed in state court. It alleges Maryland juvenile justice leaders knew about a culture of abuse inside youth detention facilities and failed to address it, violating the plaintiffs' civil rights.
Messages seeking comment were left Thursday with the state's Department of Juvenile Services and the Maryland Office of the Attorney General. The department generally doesn't comment on pending litigation.
An estimated 11,000 plaintiffs have sued in state court, according to the attorneys involved. Maryland Senate President Bill Ferguson said Wednesday that he believes negotiations for a potential settlement are ongoing between attorneys for the plaintiffs and the attorney general's office. Officials have said the state is facing a potential liability between $3 billion and $4 billion.
Lawsuits started pouring in after a state law passed in 2023 eliminated the statute of limitations for child sexual abuse claims in Maryland. The change came in the immediate aftermath of a scathing investigative report that revealed widespread abuse within the Archdiocese of Baltimore. It prompted the archdiocese to file for bankruptcy to protect its assets.
But Maryland leaders didn't anticipate they'd be facing similar budgetary concerns because of claims against the state's juvenile justice system.
Facing a potentially enormous payout, lawmakers recently passed an amendment to limit future liabilities. The new law reduces caps on settlements from $890,000 to $400,000 for cases filed after May 31 against state institutions, and from $1.5 million to $700,000 for private institutions. It allows each claimant to receive only one payment, instead of being able to collect for each act of abuse.
Suing in federal court allows plaintiffs to sidestep those limits.
'Despite Maryland's recent unconstitutional legislative efforts to insulate itself from liability for the horrific sexual brutalization of children in its custody, Maryland cannot run from liability under Federal law,' plaintiffs' attorney Corey Stern said in a statement. 'The United States Constitution was created for all of us, knowing that some would need protection from the tyranny of their political leaders.'
The three plaintiffs in the federal case allege they were sexually abused by staff at two juvenile detention centers. While other lawsuits have mainly presented allegations of abuse occurring decades ago, the federal complaint focuses on events alleged to have happened in 2019 and 2020. The plaintiffs were 14 and 15 years old.
The victims feared their sentences would be extended if they spoke out, according to the complaint. They accuse state officials of turning a blind eye to a 'culture of sexual brutalization and abuse.'
Stern said he anticipates more federal claims will be forthcoming.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
13 minutes ago
- New York Times
Justice Department Says the Trump Administration Plans to Re-Deport Abrego Garcia
Less than three weeks after Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia was brought back from a wrongful deportation to El Salvador to face criminal charges in the United States, the Trump administration indicated on Thursday that it planned to deport him again — this time to a different country. Jonathan Guynn, a Justice Department lawyer, acknowledged to a judge that there were 'no imminent plans' to remove Mr. Abrego Garcia. Still, the assertion that the administration intends to re-deport a man who was just returned to the country after being indicted raised questions about the charges the Justice Department filed against him. It was a surprising development when Attorney General Pam Bondi announced on June 6 that officials were bringing Mr. Abrego Garcia back to the United States after weeks of insisting that the Trump administration was powerless to comply with a series of court orders — including one from the Supreme Court — to 'facilitate' his release from Salvadoran custody. The administration's stated reason for doing so was equally surprising: so that Mr. Abrego Garcia could stand trial, Ms. Bondi said, on serious charges of taking part in a yearslong conspiracy to smuggle undocumented immigrants across the United States. During a news conference in Washington, Ms. Bondi assailed Mr. Abrego Garcia as 'a smuggler of humans and children and women,' linking him to even more serious crimes like murder and drug trafficking. 'This is what American justice looks like,' Ms. Bondi said. 'Upon completion of his sentence, we anticipate he will be returned to his home country of El Salvador.' Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Bloomberg
18 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Trump Administration to Review Contracts With Consulting Firms
The Trump administration is asking consulting firms to justify their federal contracts as part of far-reaching efforts to reduce waste in federal spending, according to a letter obtained by Bloomberg News. The US General Services Administration said in a letter dated Thursday that it is soliciting information from the firms about their contracts to help 'critically evaluate which engagements deliver genuine value and demonstrable returns to the American taxpayer, and therefore merit external support, and which should be internalized to ensure we are responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars and avoid unnecessary spending.'
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
She's unelected, unknown — and has the power to veto Trump's 'big, beautiful bill.' Who is the Senate parliamentarian?
Republicans in Congress have spent months hammering out the details of the massive tax and spending plan they have named the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, making a series of changes in hopes of crafting a plan that can gain the support of the GOP's far-right fringe, moderates and everyone in between. For all of the different factions that must sign off on whatever ends up in the final bill, one of the most important people Republicans will need to win over isn't a member of their party at all. A little-known bureaucrat called the Senate parliamentarian ultimately has final say on what can and can't go into this kind of legislation, not based on her political beliefs, but on her judgment of what the Senate rules allow. Over the course of the past week, the parliamentarian has decided that a long list of key provisions that have been part of the "big, beautiful bill" cannot be included in their current forms. Here's a list of just some of the items that have been vetoed: A plan to sell off millions of acres of public lands. Defunding the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Blocking federal grants for 'sanctuary cities.' Cuts to federal food assistance. Barring undocumented immigrants from receiving Medicaid. Rollbacks of green energy funding and emissions standards. New Medicaid tax rules that would have brought in hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue. Republicans will now have to either rewrite each of these sections of the bill in a way that satisfies the parliamentarian or be forced to abandon them completely so they don't prevent the entire package from becoming law. Senate Majority Leader John Thune told reporters Thursday that he was prepared for certain elements of the bill to be rejected but is hopeful that his party can adjust and put together a final plan that maintains their priorities. 'We didn't know for sure how she was going to come down on it,' he said. 'But there are things that we can do, there are other ways of getting to that same outcome.' The rules that dictate how Congress operates are extraordinarily complicated. So complicated that even the savviest of policy-minded members can't keep track of it all. The position of parliamentarian was created in the early 20th century to essentially serve as the referee to make sure that everything in the legislature is done by the book. For decades, their job was largely to serve as a nonpartisan adviser on proper legislative procedure to the two branches of Congress. The Senate parliamentarian has become a much more important figure in recent decades because of the filibuster. Officially, bills only need a simple majority to pass through the Senate, but the filibuster allows any single senator to raise that threshold to 60 votes. It's been nearly 50 years since either party has held 60 or more seats in the chamber, which means that the filibuster can effectively sink any bill that doesn't have at least some bipartisan backing. As the use of the filibuster became more and more common, Congress was finding it difficult to get even its most basic functions done, particularly its duty to pass a budget that allows the government to operate at all. So in the 1970s, they invented a process called reconciliation, which created a way to get around the filibuster and pass bills with a simple majority again. Some of the most important legislation of the past half-century — including the tax cuts passed during President Trump's first term and former President Joe Biden's Inflation Reduction Act — have only become law because of reconciliation. The catch is that reconciliation is only available for bills that primarily concern the budget. Anything else is still subject to the filibuster. There are some other rules that disqualify even some budget-centric proposals from reconciliation. Judgments on what does and doesn't qualify for reconciliation can be extraordinarily technical, and members of Congress have obvious incentives to fudge things in order to get their preferred policies through the door. That's why the ultimate say belongs to the parliamentarian. Whenever a reconciliation bill is being prepared in the Senate, the parliamentarian will comb through every detail to determine which parts can move forward with a majority vote and which ones are subject to the filibuster. Rarely do huge mega-bills like the GOP's spending plan make it through this process unscathed. It's common for members of both parties to disagree with the parliamentarian's assessments, but under current rules, their judgment is final. The current parliamentarian is named Elizabeth MacDonough. She's a 59-year-old Washington, D.C., native who has worked for the federal government in some capacity for most of the past 35 years. She was appointed as parliamentarian in 2012, becoming the first woman — and just the sixth person in history — to hold the position. At the time, she was described as 'down-to-earth,' 'diligent' and 'a pistol' by figures in Congress who knew her well. Since assuming the role, she has largely stayed out of the public eye. She purportedly only makes one public speech a year and does not speak directly to the media. During her tenure, control of the Senate has flipped three separate times — first to Republicans in 2015, then to Democrats in 2021 and back to the GOP this year. In addition to advising leaders from both parties through several reconciliation bills over the years, she also guided the Senate through two separate impeachment trials and was responsible for protecting Electoral College certificates from the mob attacking the Capitol during the Jan. 6 attack. Ultimately, the GOP doesn't actually have to listen to the parliamentarian. There is a provision that's often called the 'nuclear option' that allows Senate rules to be rewritten by a majority vote. If Republicans used it, they could overrule the parliamentarian's decision, change the standards for reconciliation or even fire her with just 50 votes. Some members of the party want to do just that. Florida Rep. Greg Stuebe called on the GOP to ignore the parliamentarian in a post on social media, writing, 'It is time for our elected leaders to take back control.' Alabama Sen. Tommy Tuberville went a step further in his own post. 'THE SENATE PARLIAMENTARIAN SHOULD BE FIRED ASAP,' he wrote. Thune, who would have to be on board with any action taken against the parliamentarian, said the nuclear option is not on the table. 'That would not be a good option for getting a bill done,' he told reporters Thursday. Though Thune didn't elaborate on his thinking, Senate leaders from both parties have historically been hesitant to take bold steps to undermine the filibuster out of fear that it would leave them with less power to stop legislation the next time they are in the minority. Republicans have already floated a few altered proposals to get some of their policy priorities back into the bill, but it remains to be seen how drastic the changes to the final package might be and whether these new plans can survive the parliamentarian's scrutiny.
