On July 21, 2025, a Maryland court ruled that one of our clients—an adult survivor of horrific childhood sexual abuse at the hands of a Catholic priest—could not sue the Archdiocese of Washington. The court cited a legal defense most Marylanders have never heard of: charitable immunity.
Even though our client’s abuse is well-documented, even though the priest was convicted of abusing other children in Montgomery County, and even though Maryland passed a law specifically to allow survivors like him to seek justice, the court concluded that the Archdiocese was shielded from legal responsibility. Why? Because it is a religious nonprofit and its insurance from the 1980s no longer exists.
This ruling is unjust. Here’s what it means, how we got here, and what we’re doing to fight back.
What Is Charitable Immunity?
Charitable immunity is a legal doctrine that allows certain nonprofit organizations—such as churches, schools, and hospitals—to avoid paying money damages, even if they are found responsible for serious harm. The idea is rooted in a 19th-century public policy belief that charitable institutions, because they serve the public good, should be shielded from lawsuits that might threaten their mission or deplete their limited resources. Courts feared that allowing claims against these entities could deter donors, drain funds meant for benevolence, or even shut down valuable community services.
This doctrine was first adopted in Maryland in the 1800s, at a time when most charities operated on shoestring budgets, liability insurance didn’t exist, and the legal system viewed such organizations as uniquely deserving of protection. The premise was that charitable assets were held in trust for the public and should not be diverted to pay damages—even in cases of wrongdoing. But as time passed, charitable organizations evolved. Many now operate with sophisticated financial structures, carry robust insurance policies, and wield enormous institutional power. Recognizing this shift, most states have either abolished or significantly restricted the use of charitable immunity. Maryland, however, remains an outlier, preserving the doctrine in its traditional form and allowing it to be used as a defense even in cases involving egregious institutional misconduct, such as child sexual abuse.
The Legal Test for Charitable Immunity in Maryland
To claim charitable immunity in Maryland, a defendant must prove three things:
- It is a charitable or religious organization;
- Its assets are held in trust for charitable purposes; and
- It does not have insurance that would cover the specific claim being made.
If all three of these factors are satisfied, the organization may be shielded from paying any money damages, regardless of how egregious the harm or how valid the lawsuit.
Our Client’s Case: A Priest, a Cover-Up, and a Shield from Justice
The case in question involves a man who was repeatedly sexually abused as a child by a known pedophile priest in the mid-1980s. That priest had already been accused of abusing children in Georgia. Rather than cooperating with the authorities, the Diocese of Savannah transferred him to Maryland for “treatment” at the Saint Luke Institute. Unrestrained and unsupervised, the priest made his way to a parish and sexually assaulted our client several times.
Eventually, the priest was arrested, convicted, and died in prison. But justice came too late for many of his victims. Only after Maryland passed the Child Victims Act of 2023—a groundbreaking law that eliminated the statute of limitations for survivors of child sexual abuse—was our client finally able to file a civil lawsuit.
The Archdiocese of Washington didn’t dispute that the abuse happened. Instead, it asked the court to dismiss the case entirely against it and its affiliated parish, invoking charitable immunity. The Archdiocese argued that:
- It is a charitable religious entity;
- Its assets are held in trust for religious and charitable purposes; and
- Its insurance coverage from the 1980s had been used up and no longer applied.
The court agreed. Despite the CVA that expressly designed to open the courthouse doors to survivors, the judge ruled that because the law didn’t specifically abrogate charitable immunity, the defense still applies.
Why This Decision Is So Devastating
The implications of this ruling are severe. First, it sends a message to survivors that justice depends not on the truth of their experience—but on the paperwork filed decades ago by an institution that failed to protect them. Second, it effectively revives a 19th-century legal shield to protect a modern organization with billions in assets and a long history of concealing abuse.
Our legal team represents hundreds of survivors of clergy abuse in Maryland, including many with claims against the Archdiocese of Washington and the Archdiocese of Baltimore. This particular ruling affects approximately one third of the cases against the Archdiocese of Washington.
Still, the broader concern remains: the court’s ruling carves a dangerous exception into a law meant to bring healing, accountability, and transparency.
Why the Ruling Is Legally Flawed
We believe this decision was wrongly decided.
The Maryland General Assembly passed the CVA with a clear purpose: to eliminate artificial barriers that kept survivors of childhood sexual abuse from seeking justice. Legislators knew that past time limits had prevented many from filing claims. The CVA was designed to fix that, creating a path for survivors regardless of how long ago the abuse occurred.
By upholding charitable immunity, the court undermines the CVA’s purpose. It reimposes an outdated and judge-made doctrine to defeat a survivor’s claim, even though the legislature had already acted to prevent that exact outcome.
Nowhere in the CVA does it say that charitable immunity survives. But the court interpreted the absence of such language as a green light to maintain the status quo—one that overwhelmingly favors institutions over individuals.
This is a failure of justice. It allows powerful organizations to avoid accountability based not on innocence, but on insurance clauses and trust funds.
Our Commitment to Survivors: Next Legal Steps
We’re not giving up.
Our legal team intends to appeal this ruling. We believe it misinterprets the intent of the legislature and ignores the evolving understanding of how institutional abuse must be addressed. Survivors deserve better. The law was passed for them—not for the institutions that harmed them.
We are also working with the Maryland Association for Justice and other allies to explore a legislative fix. If the courts insist that charitable immunity can only be eliminated through specific language, then we will work to ensure that language is added.
We believe Maryland should join the majority of other states that have reformed or abolished this outdated doctrine. At the very least, charitable immunity should not apply in cases of child sexual abuse. There is no justification—legal, moral, or religious—for allowing institutions to escape responsibility for enabling or covering up such crimes.
Why This Fight Matters to Everyone
Some may ask: “If the organization is doing good work today, shouldn’t that count for something?” But shielding institutions from responsibility doesn’t promote charity—it erodes public trust.
Institutions that knowingly enabled predators shouldn’t be protected simply because they operate under the banner of faith or charity. Real justice requires accountability. Survivors aren’t trying to bankrupt churches or schools—they’re trying to be heard, to be believed, and to receive some measure of healing through the legal process.
This ruling is part of a larger national conversation. Across the country, courts and legislatures are wrestling with how to balance institutional protections with survivor rights. Maryland was on the forefront with the Child Victims Act. But this court ruling threatens to undo that progress.
If we allow charitable immunity to stand in cases of child sexual abuse, we are saying that no matter how serious the crime, and no matter how courageous the survivor, powerful institutions can still evade accountability through legal technicalities.
We cannot let that happen.
Final Thoughts
Charitable immunity may be a legal doctrine from another century—but it’s still being used to deny justice today in Maryland. Survivors of childhood sexual abuse have waited long enough. The law must reflect the reality of their pain, the failure of institutions, and the right to accountability.
We will keep fighting—because survivors deserve more than sympathy. They deserve justice.
If you have questions about this ruling or how it affects your case, please contact our office. We’re here for you, and we will continue to stand with every survivor until the law delivers on its promise.