In Dupuis v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Portland, (ME Sup. Ct., Jan. 28, 2025), Maine's Supreme Judicial Court, in a 4-2 decision, held that Maine's Constitution bars legislative revival of a cause of action after it has been extinguished by a pre-existing statute of limitations. In the case, the Maine legislature removed any limitation period for sexual acts toward minors. Numerous plaintiffs sued the Roman Catholic Bishop of Portland for damages for sexual abuse by the Bishop's clergy that took place while plaintiffs were children. The claims were barred by the previous statute of limitations before the removal of limitation periods was enacted. The majority said in part:
... [A]s early as our founding and many times thereafter, we have interpreted our constitutional text to reject retrospective legislation impairing vested rights....
There can be no doubt that we as a society have gained a new understanding of the effect of trauma and the delays that it can cause in the ability of a victim to pursue a cause of action. Such evolved knowledge provides support for the elimination of any statute of limitations for torts involving sexual assaults. But the issue here is not the propriety of the elimination of a statute of limitations but rather the revival of a claim after the relevant existing statute of limitations has expired....
Justice Douglas, joined by Justice Lawrence, filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:
The question here is not whether a duly enacted statute of limitations is constitutional. Rather, the question is whether the Constitution bars the Legislature from reviving a claim after rebalancing competing policies in light of an evolved understanding of the dynamics of childhood sexual abuse that may have prevented victims from asserting their claims earlier.
Portland Press Herald reports on the decision. [Thanks to Thomas Rutledge and Scott Mange for the lead.]
