BALTIMORE (MD)
The Daily Record [Baltimore MD]
September 5, 2025
By Ian Round
Key Takeaways:
- Maryland Supreme Court hears challenges to clergy abuse report.
- Church officials argue reputational harm from unredacted release of names.
- State defends attorney general’s authority to investigate abuse.
Lawyers for Catholic clergy and other church leaders argued Friday that the Maryland Office of
the Attorney General abused its power in its investigation of child sexual abuse within the
Archdiocese of Baltimore and its publication of a report on its findings.
The Maryland Supreme Court on Friday heard arguments in three separate but similar cases brought by current or former church officials whose names would be included in the AG’s report on abuse within the archdiocese if it is allowed to publish an unredacted version. They have not been charged with crimes or accused of abuse, but the state contends they enabled abuse or did too little to prevent it.
The cases present a conflict between the reputational rights of uncharged people and the state’s desire to seek justice for abuse victims. Among other questions, the court is … grand jury information and other rules that generally prohibit prosecutors from talking about uncharged individuals.
The case reached the state’s high court after petitioners appealed decisions by the Baltimore City Circuit Court and Maryland Appellate Court that allowed the OAG to name them after an individualized analysis.
If the Supreme Court upholds the lower court rulings, the report will not be released immediately. The case would be remanded to the trial court for person-by-person litigation over the need to publish each name.
Former Baltimore City State’s Attorney Gregg Bernstein, a partner at Zuckerman Spaeder representing the largest group of plaintiffs, including five current or former senior officials, said the report was published “solely for the purpose of shaming.”
He also made a slippery-slope argument that another attorney general could conduct a similar investigation for “personal or partisan reasons.”
John Connolly, Bernstein’s co-counsel, said the state knows the release of secret grand jury information would harm church officials.
“The grand jury is not a search for the truth in the way a trial is,” Connolly said. “It’s a totally one-sided presentation.”
Bernstein likened the investigation to the U.S. Department of Justice’s so-called “Weaponization Working Group,” which is investigating former President Joe Biden’s pardons and the officials who prosecuted President Donald Trump. Ed Martin, a Trump loyalist heading the group after briefly serving as interim U.S. Attorney for Washington, D.C., said his goal was to publicly shame people he could not charge with crimes.
OAG lawyer Josh Segal argued former Gov. Larry Hogan acted firmly within his authority when, in 2015, he directed an investigation into the archdiocese.
Segal maintained the investigation and the publication of the report were lawful, and that they hadn’t upset the balance of power between the OAG and local powers, and between the governor and the General Assembly.
He added that, “the ability to investigate includes the ability, in some form, to document the investigation.”
John Steyer, a Pittsburgh-based lawyer for K&L Gates, argued for two Pennsylvania residents whose names could be released. Ellicott City-based lawyer Francis Collins spoke on behalf of one petitioner.