State High Courts Split on Laws Letting Survivors of Sexual Abuse Sue After Expiration of Statutes of Limitations – State Court Report

State-Level Judicial Divergence on Retroactive Justice and its Impact on Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction: Aligning Legal Frameworks with Global Goals

Recent legislative actions in several U.S. states aim to enhance access to justice for survivors of historical sexual abuse, a critical step toward achieving Sustainable Development Goal 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions). These statutes, which create retroactive “lookback windows,” permit civil suits for claims previously barred by statutes of limitation. This legislative trend directly addresses SDG Target 16.2 (End abuse, exploitation, trafficking and all forms of violence against and torture of children) and SDG Target 5.2 (Eliminate all forms of violence against all women and girls). However, these laws have triggered significant constitutional challenges, exposing a tension between providing restorative justice for survivors and upholding legal principles that protect institutions, such as public schools and religious dioceses, from liability for decades-old conduct. The outcomes of these legal battles have profound implications for the development of effective, accountable, and transparent institutions, as called for in SDG Target 16.6.

The Legislative Push for Accountability and SDG Alignment

In an effort to build more accountable institutions and provide pathways to justice, a wave of state legislation has emerged to expand the time for survivors of sexual abuse to bring civil suits. A key feature of these new laws is their retroactivity, applying to causes of action that were already time-barred. This legislative action represents a direct attempt to advance SDG Target 16.3 (Promote the rule of law… and ensure equal access to justice for all) by removing procedural barriers that have historically prevented survivors from seeking legal recourse. The resulting increase in lawsuits against institutions is a manifestation of the drive for accountability central to the SDG framework.

Constitutional Challenges: Vested Rights vs. Access to Justice (SDG 16.3)

The core legal conflict tests the principles of SDG 16.3. The question is whether the expiration of a statute of limitations confers a “vested right” upon a potential defendant—a right not to be sued that cannot be removed by retroactive legislation. While the U.S. Supreme Court has held that statutes of limitation are a matter of “legislative grace” and do not create such a vested right under the federal constitution, the issue is being decided under individual state constitutions. This has led to a fractured legal landscape where the interpretation of justice and the rule of law varies significantly from state to state.

A Divided Judiciary: State Court Rulings and their SDG Implications

State supreme courts have demonstrated a significant divergence in their rulings, leading to varied outcomes for the realization of SDG 16 across the nation. The split highlights differing judicial priorities regarding institutional stability versus individual access to justice.

• Rulings Upholding Retroactive Laws: The supreme courts of Georgia, Vermont, North Carolina, and Maryland, along with Louisiana on rehearing, have found that lookback provisions are constitutional. These rulings prioritize the “equal access to justice” component of SDG 16.3 and acknowledge the importance of legal recourse for survivor well-being (SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being).
• Rulings Striking Down Retroactive Laws: Conversely, the high courts of Utah, Kentucky, Colorado, Maine, and New Hampshire have determined that expired statutes of limitation create a vested right for defendants. These decisions emphasize a strict interpretation of the rule of law concerning retroactive legislation, creating a barrier to justice for survivors of historical abuse and impacting the full realization of SDG 16.2.

Analysis of Recent 2025 Rulings

A recent flurry of decisions in 2025 further illustrates this judicial divide and its impact on achieving justice-related SDGs.

1. Maine: The Supreme Judicial Court found that retroactive application of a law abolishing the statute of limitations contravened the Maine Declaration of Rights. The court affirmed its precedent that once a limitations period expires, a right to be free from that claim has vested, prioritizing legal finality over expanded access to justice for past claims.
2. North Carolina: The Supreme Court upheld the state’s Safe Child Act, which created a two-year lookback window. The majority’s reasoning, based on the state constitution’s “law of the land” clause, determined that statutes of limitation do not create vested rights, thereby advancing SDG 16.3 by allowing survivors’ claims to proceed.
3. Maryland: A majority of the Maryland Supreme Court upheld the Child Victims Act of 2023, which allows actions for child sexual abuse to be brought “at any time.” The court concluded that the state constitution did not provide potential defendants with a vested right in remaining free from liability, aligning the state’s legal framework with the SDG goal of ensuring justice for victims of violence.
4. New Hampshire: The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of a time-barred suit, grounding its decision in the state constitution’s 18th-century prohibition on “retrospective laws.” Citing two centuries of precedent, the court held that the expiration of a statute of limitations creates a vested right, thereby limiting the scope of legislative action to provide recourse for historical abuse.

Conclusion: The Path Forward for Justice and Strong Institutions

The two-to-two split among state high courts in 2025 reflects a persistent national divide on how to balance justice for survivors with established legal doctrines. This judicial federalism creates an inconsistent landscape for achieving SDG 16 across the United States. The ability of survivors to access justice—a key tenet of the SDGs—is currently dependent on geography. This fragmentation underscores a fundamental challenge in the uniform application of principles central to the Sustainable Development Goals, indicating that progress toward ending violence (SDG 16.2) and ensuring access to justice for all (SDG 16.3) remains uneven at the sub-national level.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

  This is the most prominent SDG in the article. The entire text revolves around the justice system, specifically the legal frameworks concerning civil suits for sexual abuse survivors. It discusses the role of state legislatures in creating laws (lookback windows), the function of courts in interpreting their constitutionality, and the goal of holding abusers and institutions accountable. The article directly addresses the theme of providing access to justice for victims of violence.

• SDG 5: Gender Equality

  While the article does not specify the gender of the survivors, sexual abuse is a form of violence that disproportionately affects women and girls. Therefore, laws that facilitate legal recourse for survivors are directly relevant to efforts to eliminate all forms of violence against women and girls and ensure their access to justice.

• SDG 4: Quality Education

  The article mentions that these lawsuits have “exposed institutions like public school districts” to liability. This connects to the need for safe learning environments. The text notes that these institutions have since “implemented safety protocols to stop future abuse,” which is a core component of ensuring quality education in a safe setting.

• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

  The article acknowledges the “suffering” of survivors and how new laws have given them a “chance to seek justice after decades with no recompense.” Access to justice and legal recourse can be a critical part of the healing process for survivors of trauma, thereby contributing to their mental health and well-being.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. Target 16.2: End abuse, exploitation, trafficking and all forms of violence against and torture of children.

   The article’s central theme is providing justice for survivors of “child sexual abuse.” The laws discussed, such as North Carolina’s “Safe Child Act” and Maryland’s “Child Victims Act of 2023,” are legislative attempts to address the long-term consequences of violence against children by holding perpetrators and affiliated institutions accountable.

2. Target 16.3: Promote the rule of law at the national and sub-national levels and ensure equal access to justice for all.

   This target is at the core of the article. The debate over “retroactive ‘lookback windows'” is a direct engagement with how to provide access to justice for survivors whose claims were previously “time-barred.” The article highlights the varying interpretations by state supreme courts (e.g., in Utah, Kentucky, Georgia, Vermont), showing the complex process of ensuring justice at the sub-national level.

3. Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.

   The article discusses how the new laws have “exposed institutions like public school districts and Catholic dioceses” to “considerable liability.” These lawsuits serve as a mechanism to hold these institutions accountable for past failures and to encourage the development of more effective safety protocols to prevent future abuse.

4. Target 5.2: Eliminate all forms of violence against all women and girls in the public and private spheres…

   The laws enabling survivors of sexual abuse to bring civil suits are a tool for addressing a severe form of violence. By providing a legal avenue for recourse, these statutes contribute to the broader goal of eliminating such violence and ensuring that survivors have access to justice.

5. Target 4.A: Build and upgrade education facilities that are child, disability and gender sensitive and provide safe, non-violent, inclusive and effective learning environments for all.

   The article’s mention of lawsuits against “public school districts” and their subsequent implementation of “safety protocols to stop future abuse” directly relates to this target. The legal pressure creates an impetus for educational institutions to become safer environments for children.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

• Existence of legislation to protect survivors (Implied Indicator for Target 16.3)

  The article details the “wave of state legislatures across the country” that passed bills to expand or eliminate the statute of limitations for sexual abuse cases. The existence and specific provisions of these laws, such as Maine’s 2021 act and Maryland’s Child Victims Act of 2023, serve as a clear indicator of legislative action to improve access to justice.

• Number of lawsuits filed by survivors (Implied Indicator for Target 16.2 & 16.3)

  The article states that “The new laws sparked an uptick in lawsuits against churches, schools, and other institutions by sexual abuse survivors.” This increase in litigation can be seen as an indicator that survivors are utilizing the new legal pathways to seek justice.

• Judicial rulings on the constitutionality of survivor protection laws (Implied Indicator for Target 16.3)

  The article provides a tally of state high court decisions, noting a “five-to-five split in the last six years for and against retroactive revival of otherwise time-barred claims.” The outcomes of these court cases are a direct measure of how the judicial system is interpreting and either upholding or striking down legislative efforts to expand access to justice.

• Implementation of institutional safety protocols (Implied Indicator for Target 16.6 & 4.A)

  The article mentions that institutions like “public school districts and Catholic dioceses — which have generally long since implemented safety protocols to stop future abuse.” The existence and effectiveness of these protocols within institutions are an indicator of progress towards creating more accountable and safer environments.

4. Create a table with three columns titled ‘SDGs, Targets and Indicators” to present the findings from analyzing the article. In this table, list the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), their corresponding targets, and the specific indicators identified in the article.

Source: statecourtreport.org