UT: Supreme Court strikes down law allowing sex abuse lawsuits

The Utah Supreme Court has struck down a state law that allowed victims of sexual abuse to sue decades later, siding against a woman who alleged a former federal judge raped her when she was a teenage witness and he an attorney prosecuting a white supremacist serial killer.

The state’s high court ruled the 2016 law unconstitutional, finding the Utah Legislature did not have the authority to effectively erase statutes of limitation after they already timed out.

“The problems presented in a case like this one are heart-wrenching. We have enormous sympathy for victims of child sex abuse,” Justice Thomas Lee wrote in the 22-page opinion. “But our oath is to support, obey, and defend the Constitution.” Four of Lee’s colleagues concurred. Full Article

Related posts

Subscribe
Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...

 

  1. Submissions must be in English
  2. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  3. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  4. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  5. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Always use person-first language.
  6. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  7. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  8. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  9. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  10. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address that are not personally identifiable.
  11. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  12. Please do not post in all Caps.
  13. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  14. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  15. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  16. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  17. Please do not solicit funds
  18. No discussions about weapons
  19. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  20. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  21. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  22. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
  23. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify their name. 
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
 

2 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Good. Hope all other state supreme courts and the USSC do the same. It’s pure insanity that the supporters of such laws refuse to see how it can be and often is abused.

It’s SOOO tempting to hit the “what about the victims” crowd with a false accusation. My guess is most of them do a 180 on their position that all sex crime accusers are to be believed and the accused must prove his innocence even while any proof he/she might have is ignored.

While this is a Utah court, it strikes me that the argument applies equally well in all (most?) states that retroactively placed individuals on registries… Especially in the case of plea deals the explicitly excluded registration.