.2501291414018.jpg)
In a 5-2 decision, the Maine Supreme Court has ruled that a 2021 state law eliminating the statute of limitations for claims of child sexual abuse is unconstitutional.
Until 1985, Maine had a six-year statute of limitations for most civil claims. That period was extended to 12 years in 1991, and in 2000, lawmakers removed the statute of limitations entirely for new claims or those not yet barred under prior statutes. The 2021 law sought to revive claims that had already expired.
In its ruling, the Court reaffirmed its long-standing position that once a statute of limitations has expired, a vested right to be free from that claim is established—and under the Maine Constitution, such claims cannot be revived.
“In sum, we have declared flatly, many times, with no articulated restriction, in varied types of cases, both common law and statutorily created, that a claim cannot be revived after its statute of limitations has expired,” the ruling written by Justice Catherine R. Connors states.
While not all retroactive legislation is prohibited, the Court emphasized that retroactive laws cannot impair vested rights.
“The problems presented in a case like this one are heart-wrenching. We have enormous sympathy for victims of child sex abuse. But our oath is to support, obey, and defend the constitution. And we find the Constitution to dictate a clear answer to the question presented,” Justice Connors wrote.
This ruling may influence legal challenges in other states, particularly those that have enacted or are considering laws to revive expired claims. While some states have successfully defended similar statutes, this decision underscores the constitutional hurdles such measures may face.
The Maine Supreme Court decision follows the wisdom of the Illinois Supreme Court decision decades ago that once a statute of limitations expires, a defendant has a vested right to rely on those potential cases being gone forever. The legislature cannot resurrect a dead claim. In a case defended by Michael Airdo, Clay v. Kuhl, 189 Ill. 2d 603, 609, 727 N.E.2d 217, 221 (2000), the Illinois Supreme Court wrote:
“The plaintiff correctly concede[d] that if her action was already barred under the common law discovery rule prior to the enactment of section 13-202.2, then the new statute could not have revived it; under Illinois law, the barring of an action by a statute of limitations creates a vested right in favor of the defendant, and the action cannot later be revived. [Citations omitted.]"
For more information on this ruling or similar legal challenges, please contact Michael A. Airdo at mairdo@airdowerwas.com, or Felicia Owen at Fowen@airdowerwas.com.