In a 4-3 opinion, the Louisiana Supreme Court overturned a state law that gave child sexual abuse victims a three-year window to file civil lawsuits against their accusers in cases that had been time-barred.
The high court handed down the ruling on March 22 in a case that pitted several plaintiffs against the Society of Roman Catholic Church, Diocese of Lafayette, and the St. Martin De Tours Catholic Church. The plaintiffs alleged they were molested as children by a Catholic priest between 1971 and 1979, when they ranged in age from 8 to 14.
While the case was being litigated, the state Legislature passed Act 322, which provided what’s called a “lookback window” to allow time-barred lawsuits to be filed by child sexual abuse victims. The state Supreme Court, however, found that the new law violated the due process clause of the state constitution.
“In summary, we hold that a defendant has a vested property right in accrued prescription,” the majority opinion authored by Justice James Genovese states. “While we respect and understand the laudable intent of the legislation before us, we are constrained to find it runs afoul of the due process protections set forth in our constitution.”
In addition, state lawmakers did not have the authority to revive timed-out child sexual abuse claims described in the ruling, Genovese said in the majority opinion.
Attorneys who have represented sexual abuse victims were quick to criticize the ruling and its likely impact beyond child sexual abuse cases.
“Childhood sexual abuse survivors in Louisiana are devastated by this ruling,” attorney Kristi Schubert, who has represented more than 100 childhood sexual abuse survivors, said in a statement. “Once again, they are being silenced. Child molesters, and the organizations that enable and protect child molesters, are rejoicing over this ruling. The ruling shields wrongdoers from the consequences of their own evil actions.”
Schubert, an attorney for the Lamothe Law Firm in New Orleans, said the state Supreme Court’s ruling goes beyond the lookout window for abuse cases.
“The lookback window is not the first time the Legislature has revived a time-barred claim,” she told the Louisiana Record in an email. “In fact, the Legislature has done it many times. Most notably, retroactively reviving cases that prescribed (passed the normal deadline for legal action) during a natural disaster has become part of Louisiana’s standard disaster management response.”
The Supreme Court opinion erodes state lawmakers’ ability to respond to natural disasters in Louisiana, according to Schubert.
“Denying the Legislature the power to revive prescribed claims would hamstring them in emergencies,” she said. “They may have to completely overhaul how they deal with legal deadlines that occur during a hurricane or other emergency. And it could impact people with all sorts of other types of lawsuits.”
The plaintiffs could ask the state Supreme Court to reconsider the case, according to Schubert.
“However, since the lookback window was struck down based on the Louisiana due process clause, the Louisiana Supreme Court is the final word on the matter,” she said. “There is no grounds to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.”
Another attorney with the Lamothe Firm, Frank Lamothe III, emphasized that the plaintiffs effectively lost their chance to seek justice due to the provisions of previous laws in effect decades ago.
“Under the old draconian laws in place back then, child victims were required to file lawsuits within one year of the sexual abuse,” Lamothe said in a prepared statement. “This means that if a child was sexually abused at 5 years old, they would have needed to file a lawsuit by the time they turned 6, or they would forever lose their chance for justice.”
In a dissent, Chief Justice John Weimer argued that the majority held property rights superior to other essential rights guaranteed to Louisiana citizens.
“(The ruling) essentially elevates vested property rights (which are purely economic rights) above all other rights, including such fundamental rights as the rights to privacy, to free speech, and to freedom of religion and from racial discrimination,” Weimer said. “And, it does so without explaining or examining why such a result is warranted under the due process clause of our constitution.”