Scales of justice and gavel
What is Charitable Immunity?

Charitable immunity laws grant nonprofits or charities protection from being sued in civil litigation cases. These laws place limits on how much someone can be compensated for harm, based on the organization’s alleged “good” or charitable work. However, these charitable immunity laws prevent survivors of child sexual abuse from holding institutions accountable. The doctrine of charitable immunity, inspired by English Common Law, protects hospitals, religious institutions, schools, and other nonprofits from lawsuits that could stop their charitable work. Courts upheld this doctrine, reasoning that exposing these entities to claims might redirect charitable funds toward litigation, which could result in the loss of vital community services.

Maryland was the first state to adopt this doctrine in the 1800s. At this time, many charities lacked robust financial structures and insurance. This is why courts felt they needed protection.

Charitable immunity protections include several key measures:

  • Banning charities from being sued for negligence.
  • Providing immunity to employees of these organizations.
  • Preventing beneficiaries from suing the charities.
  • Limiting damage payments.

Charity should never equal impunity, especially in child sexual abuse cases. Things have changed since the 1800s. Most charities are large institutions and organizations with million-dollar budgets, endowments, and insurance. 

Without financial accountability, institutions face weaker incentives to implement child-protection policies, screening, background checks, or oversight reforms.

Moreover, the immunity perpetuates secrecy and harm, particularly in sexual abuse cases. Charitable immunity is an outdated doctrine that has protected institutions that enabled or concealed abuse, fostering a culture of impunity, while endangering children.

How do Charitable Immunity Laws Protect Perpetrators of Child Sexual Abuse (CSA)?

Numerous court decisions have upheld the protection of defendants from child sexual abuse lawsuits using the charitable immunity doctrine. In Schultz v. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Newark (1984), Franciscan Robert Coakley was an instructor at a parish school that Christopher Schultz, then age 11, attended. Coakley was also a scoutmaster for the Boy Scouts of America group sponsored by the parish. In this role, Coakley operated a Boy Scouts camp that Schultz attended. At this camp, Coakley sexually abused Schultz. Following that summer, Schultz received psychiatric and medical care. Unfortunately, he died by suicide almost a year after the abuse occurred. Schultz’s parents brought charges against the archdiocese, alleging that the archdiocese was negligent in hiring Coakley. They sought compensation for the damages to Schultz, his brother, and themselves. However, the defendant was able to get the complaint dismissed due to the New Jersey Charitable Immunity Act. As a nonprofit, the archdiocese couldn’t be sued for negligence by those it helped. 

The system is built so that many attorneys have no incentive to take cases suing employees at protected charitable organizations. In a WGBH article, journalist Nancy Eve Cohen tells the story of Lynne Pottle, who was abused by a priest as a child for more than four years. Decades after the abuse, she reached out to an attorney about taking legal action against the organization. The attorney informed her that he could not take her case. The money, which was capped at $20,000 due to Massachusetts’ restrictive charitable immunity laws, was not worth his time. Cohen also tells the story of Skip Shea, who was sexually abused from the ages of 11 to 16 by more than three priests from the same diocese. He worked with lawyers to sue the diocese. Then they realized the charitable immunity cap would stop them from moving forward.

Limits to Charitable Immunity Laws in the U.S.

Many states are ending charitable immunity protections. They see other ways to support charities without denying justice to survivors. As of September 2025, 76 percent of states have abolished charitable immunity altogether or never acknowledged it. Recently, courts have denied the charitable immunity doctrine in cases of intentional sexual abuse and serious misconduct.

In states that support charitable immunity, courts are making a clear distinction. They protect negligent claims from the past but do not extend these protections to intentional acts, like sexual abuse or fraudulent concealment. For example, in Doe v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Springfield (2022), plaintiff John Doe alleged sexual abuse committed against him by fellow altar boys and priests in the 1960s. In this case, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court upheld the lower court’s denial of a motion to dismiss on the grounds of charitable immunity. The court ruled that charitable immunity does not protect church leaders from civil claims of intentional misconduct in the form of sexual assault.

The Massachusetts decision exemplifies how courts are dismantling the broad protections once afforded to charitable organizations. Many other states have mirrored that Massachusetts court decision. Courts in multiple states are no longer upholding blanket protection for charitable organizations. However, survivors’ ability to seek justice still depends heavily on where they live.

States That Still Have Charitable Immunity Laws

While most states have eliminated or restricted charitable immunity, several continue to enforce it in various ways, from limiting damages to shielding organizations from claims brought by beneficiaries:

  • Alabama has charitable immunity protections, but only from claims by beneficiaries.
  • Arkansas continues to recognize charitable immunity; however, it is applied narrowly by the courts.
  • Georgia still has charitable immunity protections; however, courts typically do not uphold the doctrine in practice, allowing most cases involving negligence to proceed.
  • Maine also has the charitable immunity doctrine in place, but immunity is not available for cases involving the sexual assault or sexual exploitation of a minor.
  • Maryland organizations have to prove a series of criteria ensuring they are charitable in nature in order to be eligible for charitable immunity.
  • Massachusetts sets a cap on damages for any negligent torts committed by a charitable organization to $20,000, plus interest and costs, the lowest charitable immunity cap in the country.
  • North Dakota also has caps, but they are much higher at $250,000 per person.
  • South Carolina has caps on damages that differ depending on who caused the injury. Additionally, claimants may only recover actual damages, not punitive damages.
  • Wyoming: Charitable immunity is available to nonprofits that provide services without charge.
  • New Jersey: Nonprofit organizations are liable for negligence but not liable for negligently causing injury to beneficiaries of the organization. 
How Can We Combat the Flaws of Charitable Immunity?

For far too long, the charitable immunity doctrine has blocked sexual abuse victims from getting the justice they deserve. Protecting charities from negligence liability, even in serious cases, prioritizes their assets over survivors’ rights. This imbalance undermines accountability. It erodes public trust in nonprofits, and perpetuates harm by allowing institutions to escape real responsibility.

To dismantle the doctrine’s ability to block justice, we need to build broad coalitions of support and raise ongoing public awareness. Engaging key stakeholders is vital for a united effort. This includes advocacy groups, victims’ rights organizations, insurance providers, and nonprofit associations. Advocacy groups and survivors’ organizations can provide firsthand perspectives that humanize the consequences of immunity. Insurance companies can demonstrate that coverage solutions already exist to protect charitable resources without denying victims recourse. Meanwhile, nonprofit associations can help identify alternative accountability structures that preserve vital community services while ending an outdated shield for negligence.

Equally critical is the task of raising awareness among both the public and lawmakers. Public campaigns, survivor testimonies, and media attention can build moral urgency and highlight the injustice of placing institutions above individuals. Educating legislators on the historical origins of charitable immunity, born out of 19th-century assumptions about philanthropy that no longer align with today’s nonprofit sector, can also help shift perceptions and garner political will for reform. With a strong coalition and an informed public, state legislatures can be pressed to introduce and pass bills abolishing charitable immunity, replacing it with modern legal frameworks that balance the protection of charitable resources with the fundamental right of victims to seek redress.

What Can We Do?

At Enough Abuse and the Children’s Justice Campaign, we work to prevent child sexual abuse and protect children by promoting education, raising awareness, and pushing for policy change. Calling for an end to charitable immunity is a fundamental element of this mission. Ultimately, the path forward requires both empathy and strategy: empathy to amplify the voices of survivors, and strategy to dismantle a doctrine that has long placed institutions above accountability. By raising our collective voice and pushing for legislative reform, we can abolish charitable immunity nationwide and ensure that justice is no longer denied to those who need it most. 

Who We Are

ENOUGH ABUSE® is the nation’s oldest citizen-based child advocacy organization, with a 65-year history of improving the lives of vulnerable children. We work in states, nationally, and with international partners to ensure every child’s right to a childhood free from abuse and exploitation.

For over two decades, our primary focus has been to prevent the sexual abuse of children in their homes, communities and online through our effective prevention trainings, education and advocacy.

The Children’s Justice Campaign at ENOUGH ABUSE® works across the country to reform and eliminate the civil and criminal SOLs for child sexual abuse. The Campaign’s strategies include statute of limitations (SOL) reform, eliminating charitable immunity for CSA, insurance reform, bankruptcy reform, and pushing for federal and state advisory boards to advocate for child safety and protection.