The Maryland Court of Appeals recently ruled on a significant case regarding sovereign immunity in the context of child sexual abuse claims. The case, Board of Education for Wicomico County v. Rhonda B. Sturm, No. 54, September Term, 2025, centers on whether the Wicomico County Board of Education can be sued for alleged abuse that occurred before July 1, 1971. This ruling is crucial for individuals seeking justice for past abuses, as it clarifies the legal protections available to state entities.
The court's decision affects individuals who may have claims against public institutions for historical abuse, particularly those arising from incidents prior to the establishment of specific legal frameworks for liability. It also highlights the ongoing challenges victims face when seeking accountability from government entities.
BACKGROUND
The parties involved in this case are Rhonda B. Sturm, a former student who alleges she was sexually abused by a teacher between 1967 and 1971, and the Board of Education for Wicomico County. Sturm filed her claims under the Child Victims Act of 2023, which removed time limitations on bringing such claims. The Board of Education, however, argued that it retains sovereign immunity for actions that occurred before July 1, 1971, when the Maryland General Assembly first required school boards to procure liability insurance.
The dispute escalated when the Circuit Court for Wicomico County denied the Board's motion to dismiss the case based on its claim of sovereign immunity. The Board then appealed this decision, but the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The Maryland Court of Appeals took up the case to determine whether the Board could appeal the interlocutory order and whether it retains sovereign immunity for claims based on conduct prior to the insurance requirement.
THE RULING
The Maryland Court of Appeals ruled that the Board's interlocutory appeal could proceed under the collateral order doctrine. Chief Judge Fader stated, "an order denying a motion to dismiss on the ground of complete sovereign immunity is immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine." This ruling means that the Board's claim of immunity could be reviewed without waiting for a final judgment in the case.
On the substantive issue, the court held that the Board retains sovereign immunity concerning tort claims arising from conduct that occurred before July 1, 1971. The court emphasized that a waiver of sovereign immunity requires specific legislative authorization and an appropriation of funds to pay any judgments. The court noted, "the General Assembly has neither appropriated funding to pay judgments for such claims nor provided county boards with the authority to raise funds for that purpose." Consequently, the court reversed the Appellate Court's dismissal of the appeal and remanded the case with instructions to grant the Board's motion to dismiss without prejudice.
IMPACT
This ruling has significant implications for victims of child sexual abuse seeking to hold public institutions accountable. By affirming the Board's sovereign immunity for claims arising before 1971, the court effectively limits the ability of individuals like Sturm to seek redress for historical abuses. The decision reinforces the notion that sovereign immunity is a strong legal protection for state entities, which can only be waived through specific legislative actions.
The ruling also sets a precedent for future cases involving claims against government entities, particularly in the context of historical abuse claims. It underscores the importance of legislative action in addressing the rights of victims and the responsibilities of public institutions. As such, it may prompt further discussions and potential legislative efforts to expand the rights of victims in Maryland.
WHAT'S NEXT
While the Board of Education's appeal has been resolved, the case may not be entirely closed for Sturm. She may still pursue other avenues for justice, but the ruling significantly narrows her options. There is no indication from the court filing that an appeal to a higher court is pending at this time.