La. Supreme Court Reverses Itself, Upholds “Lookback Window” for Child Sex Abuse Victims

In 2021, the Louisiana legislature removed the statute of limitations for victims of childhood sexual abuse to file an action against an alleged perpetrator.

The legisation also included a three-year window for any childhood sexual abuse victim prevented by the previous law’s limits to once again have the opportunity to file legal action. That window, which was set to expire on June 14, 2024, was extended three additional years, to June 14, 2027, by the 2024 Louisiana legislature.

The 2027 extension was challenged in court; wound its way to the Louisiana Supreme Court and was originally found unconstitutional by the Court. However, Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrell petitioned the Court for a rehearing, and on June 12, 2024, the Louisiana Supreme Court vacated its original ruling, thereby finding the legislation constitutional and not in violation of due process. Some excerpts, as written by Louisiana Supreme Court Chief Justice John Weimer:

The question posed in this case is whether the legislature has the authority, consistent with the due process guarantee of the Louisiana constitution, to revive a prescribed cause of action for sexual abuse of a minor.

…

Indeed, as Representative Hughes pointed out during the legislative floor debate, child sexual abuse is a unique tort in which the average victim does not come forward until they are 52 years old. For many victims of child sexual abuse, the revival provision represents their first and only opportunity to bring suit. Providing that opportunity to those victims is a legitimate legislative purpose.

…

This court’s role is not to reweigh 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. Because the crux of substantive due processis protection from arbitrary action by the government, if the propriety of the government authority’s action is debatable, there is no due process violation. … Moreover, it is presumed that the legislature acts within the limits of the constitution, and the party seeking to challenge the constitutionality of a statute bears a heavy burden of proof. …

Given Louisiana’s legitimate interest in protecting its citizens who were sexually abused as minors and in providing them with the ability to seek redress in the courts, and the narrowly tailored nature of the relief provided–the legislation revives, for a short period of time, for a narrow category of tort victims, actions otherwise prescribed–it is clear that defendants have failed to satisfy the “heavy burden” of proving the unconstitutionality of the revival provision. Under the due process clause, no rights–not even fundamental ones–are absolute. The due process clause simply offers protection from arbitrary and unreasonable action by the government. The revival provision at issue is not arbitrary (in fact, in this case it is arguable that the “arbitrary and unreasonable” conduct was the alleged sexual abuse perpetrated on children by those in societywho were placed in positions of authority). And, the provision has been demonstrated to have a substantial relationship to public safety, morals and welfare. … Indeed, when fundamental rights are not involved, “[i]n the area of substantive due process, courts look only to see if a particular legislative measure was a rational way to correct a problem.”

The defense in this case apparently argued that extending the window for now-adult child abuse victims would result in frivolous litigation. The Court addressed this stance:

The defendants’ protests notwithstanding, the resolution here will not “open the floodgates” of unrestrained legislative action, as every legislative action must comport with due process. This case isstrictly limited to itsfacts, examining whether a singular legislative act, addressing a particular systemic societal problem, hidden from the public, and impacting children and touching on the public safety, morals and welfare, comports with due process. Each case must be tested on its own unique circumstances. In virtually every case this court is called on to resolve, each party predicts catastrophe and dire consequences should the opposing party prevail. Ultimately, it is this court’s role to apply the law to the particular facts presented in the immediate case before us. In future cases, in which the facts differ, the law may well apply differently. In this case, in which the legislature established a window of time for individuals who suffered sexual abuse as minors to sue their alleged abusers and other responsible parties, regardless of when the abuse occurred, and sought thereby to provide these individuals with a meaningful opportunity for judicial relief, the defendants have not established a constitutional violation under the due process clause.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons assigned, the court’s original decree declaring the revival provisions of Sections 2 of La. Acts 322 and 386 unconstitutional is vacated. We affirm the ruling of the district court overruling the exception of prescription and its determination that Act 322, as interpreted by Act 386, is constitutional and applies retroactively to revive, for the period stated, all causes of action related to sexual abuse of a minor that previously prescribed under any Louisiana prescriptive period. This matter is remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

ORIGINAL DECREE VACATED; DISTRICT COURT JUDGMENT
AFFIRMED; REMANDED.

_________________________