Track

Status

Governing provision

No limitation at all — § 23-113(a)(1): a prosecution “may be commenced at any time” for first to fourth degree sexual abuse (§§ 22-3002 to 22-3005), first and second degree child sexual abuse (§§ 22-3008, 22-3009), sexual abuse of a minor (§§ 22-3009.01, 22-3009.02), of a secondary education student (§§ 22-3009.03, 22-3009.04), of a ward, patient, client or prisoner (§§ 22-3013, 22-3014), and of a patient or client (§§ 22-3015, 22-3016), and incest (§ 22-1901). Offenses properly joinable with these have fifteen years (§ 23-113(a)(1A)). Ten years for the exploitation offenses — § 23-113(a)(3), the reason this track is not “No deadline.” It covers enticing a child (§ 22-3010), sexual performance by a minor (§ 22-3102), labor and commercial sex trafficking and sex trafficking of children (§§ 22-1833, 22-1834), and the prostitution offenses in §§ 22-2704, 22-2705, 22-2706 and 22-2708. Joinable offenses get the same ten years. That clock starts at twenty-one — § 23-113(d)(2) delays it until the victim turns 21 for §§ 22-3010, 22-3102, 22-2704 and 22-2705, and for § 22-2706 and the Human Trafficking Act offenses where the victim is a minor. For a child victim, the practical deadline is the thirty-first birthday. Other tolling — for forced labor, trafficking and benefitting financially, the period runs only once the victim is free of the means used to hold them (§ 23-113(d)(5)); for § 22-1431(b), it runs from age eighteen (§ 23-113(d)(6)). Everything else — six years for unlisted felonies (§ 23-113(a)(4)), three years for other offenses (§ 23-113(a)(5)), and no limitation for anyone fleeing from justice (§ 23-113(f)). Reach-back — D.C. Law 22-311, § 5(b), reproduced in the official Code’s applicability note, applies the 2019 amendments to offenses committed before, on or after May 3, 2019, unless already time-barred by that date. The 2005 amendments (D.C. Law 15-356) applied on the same terms. Why “Partly removed” is right, though close — every contact offense that constitutes child sexual abuse in the District may be prosecuted at any time. What remains is the exploitation family — enticement, sexual performance by a minor, and child sex trafficking — which are child sexual abuse offenses on any ordinary understanding and are barred ten years after the victim turns twenty-one. The status should stay.

D.C. Code § 23-113 — D.C. Law Library, official Code of the District of Columbia (public domain) 

D.C. Law 22-311, Sexual Abuse Statute of Limitations Amendment Act of 2018 — D.C. Law Library

Abuse suffered before the victim turned thirty-five — § 12-301(a)(11): an action “for the recovery of damages arising out of sexual abuse that occurred while the victim was less than 35 years of age— the date the victim attains the age of 40 years, or 5 years from when the victim knew, or reasonably should have known, of any act constituting sexual abuse, whichever is later”. All childhood sexual abuse falls in this paragraph. 

Abuse suffered at thirty-five or older — § 12-301(a)(12): “5 years, or 5 years from when the victim knew, or reasonably should have known, of any act constituting sexual abuse, whichever is later”. 

The default that would otherwise apply — § 12-301(a)(8): three years for an action “for which a limitation is not otherwise specially prescribed”; § 12-301(a)(4): one year for assault and battery. Before the 2019 Act, childhood sexual abuse claims in the District ran on those ordinary tort periods, subject to infancy tolling. 

What is excluded — § 12-301(b): the section does not apply to actions for breach of contracts for sale governed by § 28:2-725, nor to actions brought by the District of Columbia government. 

Reach-back — D.C. Law 22-311, § 5(a)(1), reproduced in the official Code’s applicability note: the amendments “shall apply to an action that accrues before, on, or after May 3, 2019, unless the statute of limitations for the action expired before May 3, 2019.” Claims already expired on that date are dealt with separately, by the revival provision in section 3 below. 

Why “deadline applies”: the District did not eliminate the civil limitation period. It replaced short tort periods with a long, discovery-anchored one. The floor is the victim’s fortieth birthday and the deadline can run past that where discovery is late, but there is always a deadline. The discovery limb matters as much as the age limb — a survivor who connects the injury to the abuse at fifty-two has five years from that point, not none.

D.C. Code § 12-301 — D.C. Law Library, official Code of the District of Columbia (public domain) 

D.C. Law 22-311 — D.C. Law Library

The provision in full — D.C. Law 22-311, § 5(a)(2): “notwithstanding any other provision of law, a claim for the recovery of damages that would be time-barred under this section before May 3, 2019, but that would not be time-barred under the amendments made to this section by D.C. Law 22-311, is revived and, in that case, a cause of action may be commenced within 2 years after May 3, 2019.” 

What it reached — not every expired claim. Only a claim that was time-barred under the old law AND would not be time-barred under the new § 12-301(a)(11) or (a)(12). A survivor already past forty, and past five years from discovery, was outside the new rule and so outside the revival as well. The window was a bridge into the new limitation period, not a suspension of it. 

It is a true revival, not an extension — the District used both mechanisms in the same Act, and they sit in different subsections. Section 5(a)(1) extends the new periods to claims not yet expired. Section 5(a)(2) revives claims already expired. That is why the District belongs in the “window closed” column and not in the “none” column with the states that only lengthened their statutes. 

The criminal side had its own reach-back — § 5(b) applied the amended § 23-113 to offenses committed before 3 May 2019 unless the period had already expired. That is a reach-back, not a revival window: it did not reopen anything already time-barred. 

This entry did not exist in the tracker. The dataset carries no revival citation, no revival source URL and no window dates for any of the fifty-four jurisdictions, and the District’s revival was recorded as “Window closed” with a highlighted PDF as its only support — and that PDF is a print of § 12-301, not of the revival provision. Both dates above come from the operative words of § 5(a)(2), which the official Code prints in its own applicability note to § 12-301.

D.C. Law 22-311, Sexual Abuse Statute of Limitations Amendment Act of 2018 — D.C. Law Library (the revival provision is § 5(a)(2)) 

D.C. Code § 12-301 — D.C. Law Library (the applicability note reproduces § 5(a)(1) and § 5(a)(2))

no District of Columbia row.

Litigation worth carrying — Perez v. KIPP DC Supporting Corp. is the only reported challenge touching the District’s revival provision, and it did not strike it down; the D.C. Circuit reversed and remanded on 13 June 2023 (No. 22-7021). It belongs under Court decisions. See the open questions below on the reported citations.