The cases at issue involve alleged abuse that occurred before 1982, when the state enjoyed absolute immunity from civil lawsuits. The court must decide whether the General Assembly clearly and knowingly waived that immunity when it passed the landmark law three years ago.

The appeal centers on a claim from 1977, when a patient identified only as J.C. was allegedly molested by a doctor during a stay at the old Prince George's Hospital Center. Jonathan Massey, an attorney for J.C., argued that the legislature's decision to set damage caps in the 2023 law demonstrates it understood the state would face liability.

"That's why you need a damages cap because there's going to be liability to the state," Massey told the justices. "I don't think the legislature was silent in 2023 on the issue of sovereign immunity."

Attorneys for the state have filed roughly 200 motions to dismiss cases involving claims before July 1, 1982, arguing that lawmakers must explicitly waive the decades-old immunity protection—something they say the Child Victims Act did not do. Ryan Dietrich, an assistant attorney general, told the court that legislative intent is not enough.

"To the extent that the legislature did not speak clearly, unambiguously, and expressly, this court must err on the side of saying that sovereign immunity has not been waived, and send it back to the legislature to say, 'What did you really mean?'" Dietrich said.

Chief Justice Matthew Fader pressed Massey on whether lawmakers were even aware of the pre-1982 immunity provision, which ended with the passage of the Maryland Tort Claims Act in the 1980s.

"If their intent was to undo sovereign immunity, isn't it a little odd that they didn't mention it?" Fader asked. "What it doesn't necessarily indicate to me is an intent to undo a sovereign immunity protection that they seemingly were just unaware of."

The stakes are enormous. Cases involving allegations before 1982 make up about 11% of the 12,000 claims filed under the Child Victims Act. The law caps damages against the state at $890,000 per occurrence, though the definition of "occurrence" remains disputed. If each of the roughly 1,300 plaintiffs alleged a single occurrence and received the maximum award, the state's potential liability could reach about $11 billion—nearly four times the projected structural budget gap for fiscal 2028.

The Office of the Attorney General has argued in a filing that blocking the pre-1982 cases would reduce the state's potential liability by "more than a billion dollars."

Lower courts have split on the question. A Prince George's County judge denied the state's motion without a hearing or explanation, but judges in Frederick County and Baltimore City have dismissed cases on sovereign immunity grounds. Four motions had been granted at the circuit court level when the appeal reached the state's highest court.

The ruling will determine whether survivors of abuse dating back nearly five decades can hold the state accountable in court—or whether their claims end at the courthouse door.