In recent years, several state legislatures have passed laws that make it easier for survivors of sexual abuse to file civil lawsuits against their abusers and related non-perpetrator defendants. On the one hand, these laws have given many survivors the opportunity to seek justice after decades without any compensation for their suffering. On the other hand, it exposes institutions such as public school districts and Catholic dioceses, which have generally long ago implemented safety protocols to deter future abuse, to enormous liability and forces them to defend themselves from lawsuits stemming from allegations of conduct spanning decades. The stakes in these lawsuits are high and the consequences will have far-reaching implications.
Lawsuits brought under the new law have sparked a clash between state legislatures and courts over the constitutionality of retroactive “lookback windows” — a one- to three-year period in which survivors whose potential claims have already expired are allowed to file civil lawsuits — and other laws aimed at permanently reinstating time-limited civil actions. Cases examining the constitutionality of these retroactive provisions demonstrate judicial federalism at work, with states applying different tests to interpret different constitutional provisions and achieving different results. Even though justices are grappling with the same issues in each state, the styles of interpretation highlight contrasting judicial priorities.
A controversial new way to hold abusers accountable
In response to a 2018 Pennsylvania grand jury report on child sexual abuse in the Catholic Church, state legislatures across the country have passed legislation extending the time period for victims of sexual abuse to file civil lawsuits against their abusers and institutions. Some states have completely eliminated the civil statute of limitations for such causes of action. States have previously extended statutes of limitations for sexual abuse and other tort claims, but what was novel about these laws was their retroactivity, meaning they applied to retroactive causes of action. already There is a time limit. This new law led to an increase in lawsuits by sexual abuse victims against churches, schools, and other institutions.
A central issue in these cases is whether the expiration of the statute of limitations creates a vested right in potential civil defendants, a right not to be sued that cannot be removed by retroactive or ex post facto law. The U.S. Supreme Court has long held otherwise. It’s just a defense. The court declared that the statute of limitations reflects “public policy regarding the privilege of litigation,” which is maintained “by legislative stay” and is “subject to a relatively large degree of legislative regulation.” This means that it is up to the state Supreme Court to decide whether the limitations period creates a vested interest for a potential defendant under the state constitution.
This issue has been subject to ongoing litigation over the past several years, with mixed results. From 2020 to 2024, high courts in Utah, Kentucky, and Colorado ruled that statutes of limitations had expired, creating vested rights that could not be retroactively revived by law. Around the same time, the Georgia and Vermont Supreme Courts ruled against it, and the Louisiana Supreme Court, after ruling that the lookback period in child sexual abuse cases was unconstitutional, reconsidered the case and found it to be de facto constitutional.
This year has seen a flurry of state high court decisions challenging the constitutionality of state laws that remove the statute of limitations for sexual abuse cases. Over the course of a week in January and February, the Supreme Courts of Maine, North Carolina, and Maryland heard the case, and last month, New Hampshire’s high court finally had its say.
A divisive year on lookback clauses
In the first lawsuit in 2025, 13 separate plaintiffs filed suit against the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Portland, alleging decades of sexual abuse by clergy. They did so under a 2021 law that eliminates the statute of limitations for lawsuits based on “sexual acts against minors,” which they argued would eliminate the statute of limitations even if the claim has already expired. A 5-2 majority of the Maine Supreme Judicial Court ruled that retroactive application of the law “violates centuries of precedent and multiple provisions of the Maine Declaration of Rights, as well as the Constitution’s separation of powers provisions.” In response to the dissenting opinion that the precedent establishing vested rights in the statute of limitations was merely arbitrary, the majority emphasized that the court’s prior case law “necessarily had to be arbitrary because Congress had never before enacted a statute requiring the recovery of claims.” rear Their statute of limitations had passed. ”
Although determining that the precedent “answers the question posed” and reasoning that there was “no need to go any further,” the court applied a “Maine-centered, multifactor analysis,” under which it considered “text and structure, history and purpose, social understanding and values reflected in statute and common law, economic and sociological considerations, and precedent from other countries to the extent deemed persuasive.” The court concluded that “retroactive legislation cannot impair vested rights,” and “Once the statute of limitations for a claim has expired, the right to be free from that claim is established, and the claim cannot be revived.”
Three days later, the North Carolina Supreme Court handed down a reversal in favor of three former high school wrestlers who were sexually abused by their coaches, upholding the state’s child safety law. The law established a two-year look back period from January 2020 to December 2021 to reinstate “all time-barred civil actions for child sexual abuse.” After explaining the presumption of constitutionality for validly passed statutes, the court considered the text of the state constitution, “the historical context in which the people of North Carolina enacted it,” and the court’s own precedent. This approach drew strong criticism of “extreme originalism”, particularly from Justice Anita Earls, who agreed only in her judgment. The majority spelled out the North Carolina Constitution’s “land law” clause (which prohibits deprivation of life, liberty, or property “other than by land law”) and ex post facto law provisions, and determined that the statute of limitations was outside the scope of the vested rights doctrine.
Rounding out the week, the Maryland Supreme Court in early February upheld the Child Victims Act of 2023, by a 4-3 majority, stating that lawsuits for alleged child sexual abuse may be filed “at any time,” without regard to “time limitations.” The court concluded that although the Maryland Constitution prohibits retroactive deprivation of vested rights, establishing a standard limitation period “does not confer upon potential defendants a vested right to escape liability.”
Finally, last month, the New Hampshire Supreme Court ruled in the opposite direction, affirming the trial court’s dismissal of a statute of limitations lawsuit filed after the New Hampshire Legislature eliminated the statute of limitations for civil lawsuits based on sexual assault and incest. The plaintiff was sexually abused as a minor at a Catholic summer camp, but the statute of limitations expired in 1986, two years after he became an adult. In 2023, following a change in the law, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Bishop of Manchester of the Roman Catholic Church. The outcome of this case highlighted the unique language of the New Hampshire Constitution and a long tradition of independent jurisprudence.
In affirming the dismissal, the court relied on the 18th-century New Hampshire Constitution’s prohibition on retroactive legislation. The Constitution emphatically declares that “retroactive laws are extremely harmful, oppressive, and unjust,” and provides that “therefore, no such laws should be enacted for the determination of civil causes or for the punishment of crimes.” As early as 1826, courts interpreted this clause to invalidate previously enacted laws that aimed to abolish the statute of limitations. The court noted that unlike Maryland courts, which prior to its February decision “had never squarely addressed whether the reinstatement of a claim time-barred by the ordinary statute of limitations would invalidate a vested right,” it instead “relies on two centuries of precedent that the expiration of a statute of limitations creates a vested right.”
• • •
The results in these four states are split 2-2 this year (5-5 over the past six years), with those in favor and against retroactive reinstatement of time-barred claims. These cases may become less important over time as civil statutes of limitations tend to be extended or even abolished entirely. But for now, the ability of victims to come forward about the abuse they suffered, and the ability of institutions to look to the future rather than remain nervously fixated on the past, will vary from state to state, for better or for worse. These cases demonstrate the merits and demerits of judicial federalism and provide objective lessons in the diversity of interpretations of state constitutions.
Nathaniel M. Fauci is a professor of law at Capital University School of Law in Columbus, Ohio.
Recommended Citation: Nathaniel Fouch, State high courts split over law allowing survivors of sexual abuse to sue after statute of limitations has expiredSᴛᴀᴛᴇ Cᴏᴜʀᴛ Rᴇᴘᴏʀᴛ (November 24, 2025), https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/state-high-courts-continue-split-laws-letting-survivors-sexer-abuse-sue
