NEW ORLEANS - The Louisiana Supreme Court has changed its mind on a key legal issue affecting individuals who were sexually abused as children and are now seeking compensation.
Laws passed by the state Legislature allowing those victims to sue, even though their claims fell outside of the statute of limitations, are constitutional, the state Supreme Court found June 12.
The court originally thought otherwise - finding the so-called "revival" provision in those laws violated defendants' rights - but granted anonymous plaintiffs' motion for a rehearing.
"It is uniquely the role of the legislature to weigh the myriad policy considerations on both sides of a debate, and in this instance the legislature performed its role, debating the legislation at issue in public forums in two legislative committees, and on the floor of the House and Senate," Chief Justice John Weimer wrote.
"The legislation passed unanimously and was signed into law by the Governor. This court's role is not to re-weigh the legislature's policy decision. This court cannot strike down a provision enacted by the legislature unless it is inconsistent with the due process guarantee."
Act No. 322 came about in 2021. It created a three-year window for sexual abuse claimants to file suit, even if those cases would normally be barred by the statute of limitations, called the liberative prescription.
Act 386 came a year later and amended 322. It contained the following: "It is the express intent of the legislature to revive until June 14, 2024, any cause of action related to sexual abuse of a minor that previously prescribed under any Louisiana prescriptive period."
But the first time the Supreme Court took up the case, it struck down the laws. Defendants argued their due process was violated because their defense that time had run out for the claims was taken from them.
And that defense, the court ruled, was essentially property. And that property, it added, was protected by due process guarantees.
Weimer notes in the new opinion that the court had a chance to decide the constitutionality of revival clauses in 2008 in a case called Burmaster but failed to conduct a proper analysis - "because the court had not engaged in the substantive due process analysis before considering vested rights, it must not be necessary to do so at all,' Weimer wrote.
That 2008 court found that statutes enacted after the acquisition of a vested property right cannot be applied retroactively.
"The logical consequence of Burmaster's holding is far-reaching," Weimer wrote.
"In essentially declaring that any interference with vested rights under any circumstances violates due process and is therefore unconstitutional, Burmaster effectively 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."
Ultimately, Weimer and the majority found that because the revival clause was included in the legislation, it must be allowed. Justice James Genovese dissented from his colleagues.
He said the new ruling elevates laws made by legislators over a constitutional right.
"Once a claim prescribes, the debt is extinguished, and a defendant's right to plead prescription is unconditional or vested," he wrote.
"Thus, when a party acquires the right to plead the defense of accrued prescription, his right becomes a vested property right protected by constitutional due process guarantees.
"The defendants herein, by law, were freed of their legal obligation over 50 years ago. Their property rights, by law, were secure.
"Now, over a half-century later, their property rights are exposed and ripe for seizure of an extinguished legal obligation."
He noted that all witnesses in these cases are "likely deceased," and documents unavailable. Defendants, he added, are now "defenseless."