Marci A. Hamilton, Founder & CVO, CHILD USA
Robert K. Jenner, Jenner Law, P.C.
On July 21, 2025, a Maryland court ruled that an adult survivor of horrific childhood sexual abuse at the hands of a Catholic priest could not sue the Archdiocese of Washington, DC. The court cited a legal defense most Americans have never heard of: charitable immunity. It is a doctrine few states still follow, but it is blocking justice for child sex abuse victims in too many states, including Maryland. Yes, there is yet another legal doctrine that unfairly blocks justice for meritorious child sex abuse cases.
Even though the abuse in this case was well-documented, the priest was convicted of abusing other children in Montgomery County, and Maryland passed a law—a permanently open window –specifically to allow survivors like him to seek justice, the court concluded that the Archdiocese was shielded from legal responsibility. Why? Because it met the prerequisites for charitable immunity: 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 needs to change.
What Is Charitable Immunity?
Charitable immunity is a widely discredited 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 are inherently good: they serve the public good, so they should be shielded from lawsuits that might threaten their mission or deplete their limited resources, or so the reasoning goes. The reasoning in the nineteenth century was driven by fears that allowing claims against these entities could deter donors, drain funds meant for benevolence, or even shut down valuable community services. What they did not know at the time was that public benefit organizations would cover up child sex abuse and need legal deterrence and accountability.
The fair demands for justice have prevailed over the centuries so that now 43 states do not recognize charitable immunity. The remaining seven states place limits on the doctrine, but in states like Maryland, it still shields bad acts and blocks justice. (See the chart below.)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 and the law in most states 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
To claim charitable immunity in Maryland, a defendant must prove three things:
1. It is a charitable or religious organization;
2. Its assets are held in trust for charitable purposes; and
3. 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.
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 infamous Saint Luke Institute. Unrestrained and unsupervised, the priest made his way to a parish and sexually assaulted the plaintiff 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 (CVA)—a groundbreaking law that permanently eliminated the statutes of limitation for survivors of child sexual abuse—was this brave survivor 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
• There was no insurance coverage; its coverage from the 1980s had been exhausted and no longer applied.
The court agreed. Despite the CVA, which was 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. Note how the Maryland charitable immunity doctrine’s handling of insurance doubly protects the bad actors. Even if the entity has assets that could be used to compensate the victim, the fact of no insurance safeguards those assets.
Why This Decision Is So Devastating to Victims
The implications of this ruling are severe. First, it sends a message to victims that justice depends not on the truth of their experience—but on the religious status of an organization and insurance paperwork filed decades ago by an institution that hurt them. Second, it perpetuates an outdated 19th-century legal shield to protect a modern organization with a long history of concealing abuse and billions in assets.
This ruling will affect hundreds of clergy abuse victims in Maryland, including many with claims against the Archdiocese of Washington and potentially the Archdiocese of Baltimore which is now in bankruptcy.
The ruling is also antithetical to the plain purpose of the CVA as it carves a dangerous exception into a law meant to bring healing, accountability, and transparency.
Why the Ruling Is Legally Flawed
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 is charitable immunity mentioned. Testimony and public discussion, however, repeatedly included reference to the victims of Catholic clergy sex abuse. All those working on the bill, including CHILD USA, understood and expected it would be applied in the clergy context. Public testimony included heart wrenching stories by clergy sex abuse victims. No member of the House or Senate ever suggested that Catholic victims would not get access to justice under the CVA. But the court interpreted the absence of such language as a green light to gut cases clearly contemplated by the legislature—one that overwhelmingly favors harmful institutions over individuals.
This is a failure of justice. It allows powerful organizations to avoid accountability based not on innocence, but on a defunct doctrine that takes into account insurance clauses and trust funds.
The ruling is being appealed, and should be reversed. 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.
There also needs to be a legislative fix: it’s time to repeal charitable immunity for child sex abuse cases in Maryland. 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 vast 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 and fails to check bad decisions that even nonprofit, religious organizations can make.
Institutions that knowingly and recklessly enabled predators shouldn’t be protected simply because they operate under the banner of faith or charity. Even if they are improving their prevention policies, the harm to the victims from the past is real. True justice and meaningful child protection require accountability.
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 its 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. That means predators remain hidden, the cost of the abuse continues to rest on the victims and their families, and the public stays in the dark.
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 seven states including Maryland. The victims of childhood sexual abuse have waited long enough. The law should 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 and the public deserves nonprofit institutions that don’t harm the public good.
1 Jenner Law represents the survivor in this case.
2 For more information on statutes of limitation, check out CHILD USA’s law page at https://childusa.org/law/.
3 https://marylandmatters.org/2023/03/03/wilson-leads-emotional-testimony-from-child-sexual-abuse-survivors-advocates-in-house-committee/
Charitable Immunity by State (as of 2025)
| State | Recognizes Charitable Immunity? | Scope/Limitations |
| Alabama | No | Largely abolished by case law but some cases suggest that immunity from claims by beneficiaries |
| Alaska | No | Not recognized |
| Arizona | No | Abolished by court decision |
| Arkansas | No | Only direct actions against insurers are permitted |
| California | No | Abolished in Malloy v. Fong (1951) |
| Colorado | Yes (limited) | Claims are limited up to the amount of insurance coverage |
| Connecticut | No | Abolished in 1967 |
| Delaware | No | Immunity for volunteers and directors in some circumstances |
| District of Columbia | No | No broad charitable immunity doctrine |
| Florida | No | Abolished; liability subject to standard tort principles |
| Georgia | Yes (limited) | Immunity available to public charities unless gross negligence is proven |
| Hawaii | No | Eliminated for CSA claims |
| Idaho | No | Abolished in 1966 in Bell v. Presbytery of Boise; some limited immunity for volunteers |
| Illinois | No | Immunity abolished by the courts |
| Indiana | No | Abolished in 1968; immunity available only under specific statutes (e.g., Good Samaritan law) |
| Iowa | No | Abolished in 1950 but some immunity exists for volunteers and nonprofit directors |
| Kansas | No | Abolished by the courts |
| Kentucky | No | Abolished |
| Louisiana | No | Abolished |
| Maine | No | Abolished for sexual assault or sexual exploitation of a minor claims arising before, on, or after October 25, 2023 |
| Maryland | Yes (limited) | Applies only when assets of the charitable organization are held in trust, either expressly or by implication, and when the corporation has no liability insurance covering the act. If an organization carries insurance, recovery is limited to the policy limits. |
| Massachusetts | Yes (limited) | Charitable immunity is available as a defense to negligence claims, but immunity is not provided if the tort was committed in the course of any activity carried on to accomplish directly the charitable purposes. |
| Michigan | No | Charitable immunity abolished by case law |
| Minnesota | No | Abolished by judicial decision |
| Mississippi | No | Abolished in 1951 |
| Missouri | No | Abolished |
| Montana | No | No general charitable immunity |
| Nebraska | No | Abolished in 1966 |
| Nevada | No | Not recognized |
| New Hampshire | No | Abolished in 1939 |
| New Jersey | No | Abolished for CSA claims in 2019 but standard of care rule applies |
| New Mexico | No | Abolished |
| New York | No | Abolished in 1957 but volunteers protected under certain conditions |
| North Carolina | No | Abolished by statute in 1967 |
| North Dakota | No | Abolished |
| Ohio | No | Abolished |
| Oklahoma | No | But limited immunity by statute for volunteers and nonprofit board members |
| Oregon | No | Abolished by judicial decision |
| Pennsylvania | No | Abolished |
| Rhode Island | No | Not recognized. |
| South Carolina | No | Abolished 1986 |
| South Dakota | Unclear | Immunity may be available under certain statutory provisions |
| Tennessee | No | But charitable funds immune from execution of judgement |
| Texas | No | Abolished in 1971, but the State legislature enacted the Charitable Immunity and Liability Act in 1987, reducing the liability exposure and insurance costs of charitable organizations and their employees and volunteers in order to encourage volunteer services and maximize the resources devoted to delivering these services. |
| Utah | Yes (limited) | Volunteer immunity and some charitable protections apply |
| Vermont | No | Abolished in 1950 |
| Virginia | Yes (limited) | Immunity for negligence arising out of acts of employees or agents. However, immunity does not apply if due care has not been exercised in the selection and retention of the responsible employee |
| Washington | No | Abolished |
| West Virginia | No | Abolished in 1965 |
| Wisconsin | No | Abolished |
| Wyoming | No | But immunity does apply to nonprofit healthcare facilities for the negligent acts of a volunteer |