In January, the state Supreme Court will take up a question that could impact many Louisiana residents.
The justices have agreed to hear arguments in a case involving several men who filed suit several years ago, accusing the late priest Kenneth Morvant of sexually molesting them during the 1970s while he was assigned to St. Martin de Tours Church in St. Martinville.
At issue is Louisiana's "look back" law, which allows victims of past sexual abuse to file suits against their alleged abusers outside the usual one-year limitation for civil claims. Going forward, there will be no deadline for new victims of sexual abuse, under the law.
Louisiana's law opened a window for past victims in 2021, allowing survivors who were abused at any time in the past to file lawsuits against their alleged abusers. That window closes in June 2024. At the time, lawmakers said they were basing the law on studies that show many child sex abuse victims repress memories of the abuse and don't recover those memories until they're in their 50s.
The men in the current case, all identified as "John Doe" except Douglas Bienvenu, are in their 50s, according to their attorney, Cle Simon.
The law was amended in 2022, adding language that specifically states that the legislature was intending to revive any claim that had previously expired under any Louisiana law.
The Diocese of Lafayette has argued that this law is not constitutional, and that's the issue the state Supreme Court has agreed to take up. The state's highest court did review a case involving this law in May 2023, but declined to rule on the question of constitutionality.
Simon, who is the son of the late J. Minos Simon, a Louisiana lawyer who was the first to win a sexual abuse civil suit against the Diocese, said this case is an important one - for victims of sexual abuse across Louisiana, not just his clients.
"This is a big deal for every victim of sexual abuse in the history of Louisiana," Simon said. "This legislation revived claims that are 40 plus years old, and it said there's no such thing as prescription on sexual abuse cases going forward."
We also reached out to the attorney for the Diocese, Gil Dozier, but so far we haven't heard back.
The Supreme Court will be reviewing an August ruling from the Third Circuit Court of Appeal, which looked at the law and decided it was constitutional in a nearly identical case. In taking up that case, which was filed by "Sam Doe" in 2020, the Third Circuit stayed the case of Simon's clients because the ruling on the same issues would be the same. Indeed, the day after the Sam Doe opinion was issued the Third Circuit rejected the Diocese appeal in the Bienvenu case.
In the Sam Doe case, the appeals court stated that the issue was whether the law has the clear intent to revive all sexual abuse claims that had expired, and whether it can be applied retroactively.
The Diocese argues that the law isn't constitutional under Louisiana law because it removes the right of the Diocese to a time-related defense, and it isn't constitution under federal law because it prevents the church's right to due process.
So the issue under Louisiana law is, according to the appeal court, whether the Diocese has that right to begin with, and if it does, what kind of right it is. The 21-page opinion goes into detail discussing the history of Louisiana law regarding these issues; you can read it yourself by scrolling down.
Also important is what the legislature intended in changing the law. In one of the cases reviewed, the law discussed was revised by the legislature based on "equity and policy considerations."
"This is especially true here because (1) the victims of childhood sexual abuse unknowingly repress memories of the abuse, which prevents them from timely pursuing a cause of action against their perpetrators, and (2) the Diocese did nothing to protect potential victims by concealing the sexual abuse of minors by priests and allowing priests who perpetrated the abuse to continue working with children without removing them from positions that allowed them access to children and without warning others of priests who abused children," the opinion states.
The appeal court acknowledged that "prior jurisprudence on this issue is confusing and, therefore, fails to establish a long line of cases following the same reasoning," but after a careful examination of prior case law and legislation the court found that the law, and the act that amended it, don't violate any right the Diocese might have to a time-related defense.
"In reaching this conclusion, we are mindful that (the laws) revive claims for sexual abuse of minors only for a limited period of three years, the Diocese did not protect children from priests reported to have sexually abused minors thereby allowing such abuse to continue, and the Diocese can assert prescription against claims asserted after June 14, 2024," the opinion states.
On the federal questions, the court quotes a decision in a similar case in Delaware:
"Statutes of limitation find their justification in necessity and convenience rather than in logic....They are by definition arbitrary, and their operation does not discriminate between the just and the unjust claim, or the avoidable and unavoidable delay...Their shelter has never been regarded as.... a "fundamental right".... the history of pleas of limitation shows them to be good only by legislative grace and to be subject to a relatively large degree of legislative control," the Delaware Supreme Court opinion states.
In his appeal to the state Supreme Court, Dozier states that several technical issues in the Third Circuit opinion should be taken up by the higher court.
"The Third Circuit ruling with respect to the challenged statutes would suggest that the legislature can revive prescribed causes of action. Such a ruling is a significant issue of law as its application and extension would violate more than a century of Louisiana jurisprudence interpreting Louisiana’s Constitution and which should be resolved by this Court," Dozier wrote.
He also argues that the legislature "simply lacks authority to take such action regardless of any underlying motive or public purpose." He said allowing the legislature to revive claims that previously prescribed would "eviscerate the foundation of Louisrana law with regard to accrued prescription and vested property rights."
"If the Legislature has the power to revive any prescribed claim, then... nobody will be secure," he wrote.
To read Dozier's writ application, scroll past the Third Circuit opinion.
Here's the Third Circuit opinion:
Here's the Diocese writ application:
