Source: statecourtreport.org 11/24/25
State supreme courts have emphasized different constitutional provisions to decide whether bills reviving time-barred civil causes of action for child sexual abuse claims are constitutional.
In recent years, several state legislatures have passed statutes making it easier for survivors of sexual abuse to bring civil suits against their abusers and related non-perpetrator defendants. On one hand, these laws have given many survivors the chance to seek justice after decades with no recompense for their suffering. On the other hand, they have exposed institutions like public school districts and Catholic dioceses — which have generally long since implemented safety protocols to stop future abuse — to considerable liability and forced them to defend themselves against lawsuits arising from allegations of decades-old conduct. The stakes in these cases are high and their outcomes will have far-reaching consequences.
Lawsuits brought under the new laws have teed up clashes between state legislatures and courts over the constitutionality of retroactive “lookback windows” — periods of one to three years during which survivors whose potential claims had previously expired are permitted to bring civil suits — and other statutes that purport to permanently revive time-barred civil suits. Cases considering the constitutionality of these lookback provisions have showcased judicial federalism in action, with different states applying different tests to interpret different constitutional provisions with different results. The modes of interpretation highlight contrasting judicial priorities even as justices grapple with the same issue state to state.
A Controversial New Way to Hold Abusers Accountable
In the aftermath of a 2018 Pennsylvania grand jury report on child sexual abuse in the Catholic Church, a wave of state legislatures across the country passed bills expanding the length of time for survivors of sexual abuse to bring civil suits against their abusers and affiliated institutions. Some states eliminated the civil statute of limitations for such causes of action altogether. While states had previously lengthened limitations periods for sexual abuse and other tort claims, what was novel about these laws was their purported retroactivity — that is, their application to causes of action that were already time-barred. The new laws sparked an uptick in lawsuits against churches, schools, and other institutions by sexual abuse survivors.
The core question in these cases is whether the expiration of a limitations period creates a vested right for a potential civil defendant — that is, a right not to be sued that cannot be removed by retroactive legislation or ex post facto laws. The U.S. Supreme Court has long held that it does not; it is merely a defense. The court has declared that statutes of limitation reflect “a public policy about the privilege to litigate,” which is held “by legislative grace” and is “subject to a relatively large degree of legislative control.” This means that it is up to state supreme courts to…