The Maryland Supreme Court on Tuesday heard oral argument about the constitutionality of a state law that eliminated the time limit for survivors of child sexual abuse to file lawsuits and made it easier for them to sue institutions that facilitated their victimization.

For almost 3 1/2 hours, the justices listened and asked questions during dense and technical presentations about the Child Victims Act of 2023. At one point, Justice Brynja M. Booth inquired about the meaning of a set of quotation marks.

But the decision from the state’s highest court will have consequential implications for survivors throughout Maryland. The justices did not say when a ruling would be issued.

“Some of us have been fighting for this for 30 years. And this is an extraordinary day,” said Carolyn Surrick, who says she survived sexual abuse while a student at the Key School.

“It’s been very hard to get to this moment, and here we are. It’s miraculous,” Surrick told reporters outside the Robert C. Murphy Courts of Appeal Building in Annapolis. “And I believe in the Supreme Court of Maryland.”

Since the law took effect on Oct. 1, 2023, people have sued state-run juvenile detention centers, schools and churches. Judges issued conflicting rulings about whether the law is constitutional.

Citing an expected flood of lawsuits, the Archdiocese of Baltimore filed for bankruptcy days before the law was set to go into effect. The case is ongoing.

The courtroom was filled with attorneys, law clerks and survivors. The chair of the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee, state Sen. William C. Smith Jr., sat in during most of oral argument. Senior Justice Robert N. McDonald participated in the case in place of Justice Steven B. Gould.

Oral argument largely centered around an esoteric legal concept called a statute of repose, which creates a right after a certain period to be protected from liability.

In 2017, the Maryland General Assembly changed the law, so survivors had until they were age 38 instead of 25 to file lawsuits.

Del. C.T. Wilson, a Democrat from Charles County, wanted to extend the statute of limitations and championed the cause of survivors. He has publicly spoken about how his adoptive father sexually abused him.

Wilson struck an agreement to earn the support of the lobbying arm of the Catholic Church in Maryland.

But an amendment added what’s purported to be a statute of repose to his bill.

The statute of repose would provide immunity to institutions and others from claims that were already barred under a statute of limitations. And the provision would stop survivors after they turned 38 from pursuing lawsuits against them.

Sean Gugerty, an attorney who represents the Key School, said lawmakers in 2017 both extended the statute of limitations and established a statute of repose.

“The General Assembly knew what it was doing,” Gugerty said.

At one point, Chief Justice Matthew J. Fader said the high court has opined many times that it presumes that the legislature meant what it stated in laws.

But Fader noted that legislators passed the bills in 2017 and 2023 with either unanimous or near unanimous support.

“Did the General Assembly understand the implications of saying that it was a statute of repose?’” Fader asked.

Richard Cleary Jr., an attorney for the Archdiocese of Washington, which has parishes in five Maryland counties, also reiterated that the legislature knew what it was doing.

Meanwhile, Cate Stetson, an attorney who represents survivors, argued that legislators did not intend to create a statute of repose.

The label, she said, does not control the analysis. Stetson said the legislature could not bind lawmakers in the future from changing a law.

“There is no such thing as a vested right not to be sued,” Stetson said.

Statutes of repose are supposed to serve a critical purpose of encouraging economic activity that benefits the state, said Robert Peck, an attorney who represents survivors.

“Certainly,” Peck said, “there is no state interest in encouraging childhood sexual abuse or just as condemnable actions.”

Josh Segal urged the court on behalf of the Maryland Office of the Attorney General to uphold the constitutionality of the Child Victims Act of 2023.

Following the hearing, David Lorenz, who leads Maryland chapter of Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, said the Key School and Archdiocese of Washington “should be ashamed of themselves for treating survivors like some product that has some limited liability.”

Teresa Lancaster, a survivor, activist and attorney in Maryland, said she is optimistic but warned that there will be dire consequences if the justices find the law unconstitutional.

“These crimes have harmed many, many people,” Lancaster said. “We deserve our day in court. We deserve justice.”