Justices Deliberate on SAFE Child Act’s Constitutional Challenge
The North Carolina Supreme Court convened this week to hear arguments that could determine the future of hundreds of child abuse lawsuits. At the heart of the debate is the constitutionality of the 2019 law, the SAFE Child Act. This legislation opened a two-year window for victims to file claims against their alleged abusers and the organizations that employed them, regardless of when the abuse occurred. The law’s passage was unanimous, but its implementation has been mired in legal challenges. The state’s highest court must decide whether the Act’s “revival window” aligns with North Carolina’s constitution. This decision could have far-reaching consequences for abuse survivors and the institutions they seek to hold accountable.
5 Key Points
- The SAFE Child Act of 2019 allowed a two-year period for filing previously time-barred child abuse lawsuits.
- Hundreds of lawsuits were filed under this law, but legal challenges have stalled many cases.
- The Supreme Court is considering whether the law’s “revival window” violates the state constitution.
- Defendants argue the law infringes on vested rights and makes it difficult to defend against old claims.
- Supporters say the law recognizes that many abuse survivors can only come forward as adults.
Constitutional Debate Takes Center Stage
The North Carolina Supreme Court’s decision will likely pivot on the constitutionality of the SAFE Child Act’s revival window. This provision allowed victims to file lawsuits in 2020 and 2021 for abuse that occurred decades ago, effectively bypassing the usual statute of limitations. The legal teams representing various defendants, including the Gaston County Board of Education, have argued compellingly against the law. They contend that upholding it would fundamentally alter the interpretation of the state’s 1971 constitution. Their position asserts that such a ruling would grant the legislature unprecedented power to revive expired civil claims, potentially destabilizing decades of established legal precedent. This argument strikes at the heart of the balance between legislative authority and constitutional constraints, forcing the justices to grapple with the limits of legislative power in addressing historical injustices.
Defendants Cite Evidentiary Challenges
A central argument against the SAFE Child Act revolves around the practical difficulties organizations face in defending against accusations from the distant past. Speaking on behalf of the Gaston County Board of Education, Robert King presented a stark picture to the justices. He highlighted cases where the passage of time has erased crucial evidence, making a fair defense nearly impossible. King cited a particularly poignant example of a small church in Bladen County now confronting allegations from the 1960s. All potential witnesses have passed away, and no documents or insurance policies from that era remain. This situation, King argued, exemplifies the fundamental unfairness of reviving such old claims. It raises questions about how institutions can be expected to mount an effective defense when the very fabric of evidence has disintegrated over time. The dilemma presented to the court is whether pursuing justice for past wrongs justifies placing defendants in such a precarious legal position.
Advocates Push for Institutional Accountability
Proponents of the SAFE Child Act staunchly defend its constitutionality and necessity. Attorney Bobby Jenkins, representing former wrestlers suing Gaston County Schools, argued that the revival window is constitutional and essential for holding institutions accountable for past failures to protect children. Jenkins emphasized that the statute of limitations is fundamentally a public policy decision, subject to legislative adjustment. This perspective frames the SAFE Child Act as a necessary correction to a legal system that previously failed to account for the unique challenges faced by child abuse survivors. North Carolina Solicitor General Ryan Park bolstered this position, lending the weight of the state’s legal apparatus to the defense of the law. Their arguments collectively posit that the revival window serves a crucial public interest by providing a mechanism for addressing historical injustices that would otherwise remain buried by time and legal technicalities.
Legal Ripples Across Organizations
The court’s impending decision casts a long shadow over various organizations across North Carolina. Hundreds of pending lawsuits hang in the balance, targeting entities ranging from Catholic dioceses to local school boards. These cases represent individual claims and a broader societal reckoning with institutional responsibility for child protection. The potential financial and reputational impacts on these organizations are substantial, adding another layer of complexity to the court’s deliberations. Beyond the immediate parties involved, the ruling could set a precedent for how other states approach similar legislation aimed at addressing historical child abuse cases. This puts the North Carolina Supreme Court in a position to influence national legal trends in dealing with the long-term effects of child abuse and institutional accountability.
Survivors’ Stories Underscore Legal Battle
Behind the legal arguments and constitutional debates lie the deeply personal stories of abuse survivors who have long awaited their day in court. Charles Bailey, a 73-year-old survivor, attended the hearing wearing a poignant reminder of his past – a photo of himself at age 10 when he says a Catholic priest repeatedly raped him. Bailey’s presence in the courtroom and his years of lobbying for the SAFE Child Act put a human face on the legal proceedings. His story underscores the profound impact of childhood abuse and the decades-long journey many survivors face in seeking justice. Rachel Howald, whose lawsuit under the SAFE Child Act resulted in a settlement, offered a sobering perspective on the challenges that lie ahead even if the law is upheld. Her statement, “This is about getting the right to fight the fight,” encapsulates the view of many survivors who see the legal process as a necessary, if difficult, path toward healing and accountability.
FAQ
Q: Do you qualify for a sex abuse lawsuit?
A: To see if you qualify, click here.
Q: What is the SAFE Child Act?
A: The SAFE Child Act is a North Carolina law passed in 2019 that opened a two-year window for victims of child sexual abuse to file lawsuits, regardless of when the abuse occurred.
Q: Why is the law being challenged?
A: Opponents argue that the law’s revival window violates the state constitution by allowing the revival of expired civil claims and infringing on vested rights.
Q: How many lawsuits were filed under this law?
A: Hundreds of childhood sex abuse survivors launched civil lawsuits during the two-year window provided by the SAFE Child Act.
Q: Who are the defendants in these lawsuits?
A: Defendants include Roman Catholic dioceses, school boards, and other organizations accused of enabling or failing to prevent child sexual abuse.
Q: When is the Supreme Court expected to rule on this issue?
A: The decision is expected in the coming months, though no specific date has been set.
Citations
Bridges, V. (2024, September 19). Will hundreds of child abuse cases move forward? NC Supreme Court hears arguments. Yahoo News. https://www.yahoo.com/news/hundreds-child-abuse-cases-move-155953504.html
