A Maryland Bill Would Have Shielded Survivors Who Speak Out. It Never Got a Vote.

Reviewed by Survivor Rights Center · Updated 2026-07-18

The Gap the Bill Was Meant to Close

In most states, including Maryland, there is no specific law protecting a sexual assault survivor from being sued for defamation by the person they publicly accuse. Ordinary defamation law already lets a truthful, good-faith statement serve as a defense, but that defense typically has to be proven in court, which means a survivor can still be dragged through an expensive lawsuit even if they ultimately win. Advocates describe this as a tool that can be used to punish or silence survivors regardless of the outcome.

The Stop Silencing Survivors Act was written to address that gap directly by creating immunity, rather than just a defense, for survivors who speak in good faith about their own experience.

What the Bill Would Have Done

As filed, the legislation would have granted immunity from civil liability to a person who discloses allegations of sexually assaultive behavior in good faith. Good faith would be presumed unless the person suing could show the disclosure involved actual malice, or that the survivor intentionally or recklessly shared false information. The bill also included provisions letting a survivor recover attorney's fees and court costs if they were sued and the immunity applied.

The measure was cross-filed, meaning identical versions moved through the Senate as SB 295 and the House as HB 465, a common approach in Maryland meant to give a bill two chances to advance in the same session.

Why It Stalled

Both bills received committee hearings in early 2026, with the Senate version heard by the Judicial Proceedings Committee and the House version heard by the Judiciary Committee. Rather than coming to a vote, SB 295 was referred to an internal work group within the Judicial Proceedings Committee for further discussion, according to a survivor advocacy coalition that tracked the bill through the session.

That work group never produced a version of the bill that came back for a floor vote in either chamber before the 2026 session ended. Advocates who supported the bill have said that resistance from at least one committee member concerned about how broad the immunity language was played a role in keeping it from moving forward.

What This Means for Survivors in Maryland Right Now

Because the bill did not pass, Maryland's existing defamation law remains unchanged. A survivor who names an alleged abuser publicly still relies on ordinary truth and good-faith defenses rather than the stronger immunity the bill would have created, and still faces the possibility of being sued even if that defense would ultimately succeed.

This was the second year in a row advocates brought a version of this bill to the Legislature, after a similar proposal was introduced in the 2025 session. Coalition groups that supported it have indicated they intend to bring it back again, which is a common path for legislation that stalls in committee rather than failing on a floor vote.

What Survivors Should Know About Defamation Risk When Speaking Publicly

Whether or not a state has a shield law like the one Maryland considered, these are the basics that tend to matter if a survivor is weighing whether to publicly name an alleged abuser.

1. Truth is generally a defense: In most states, a true statement cannot be the basis of a successful defamation claim, even without a specific shield law in place.
2. Good faith matters, but you may still have to prove it: Without immunity, a survivor may need to defend the truthfulness and good faith of their statement in court, which can be costly even if they ultimately win.
3. A handful of states have considered specific shield laws: Bills like Maryland's are part of a broader, still-developing trend of proposals aimed at protecting survivors from retaliatory lawsuits.
4. Fee-shifting provisions can matter as much as immunity itself: Some proposals let a survivor recover attorney's fees if sued, which can matter even more than blanket immunity in discouraging retaliatory suits.
5. Consult an attorney before naming an accused person publicly: State defamation law varies significantly, and a lawyer can help assess exposure before a survivor speaks publicly.
6. Document the basis for any public statement: Keeping records of what a statement is based on can support a good-faith or truth defense later if it is ever challenged.

Frequently asked questions

Related