Last week, I wrote about the deeply disappointing decision from the Maine Supreme Court striking down the state’s revival window for child sex abuse (CSA) claims. Since then, the Arkansas Court of Appeals also ruled that their 2021 revival window could not be applied to revive claims against abusers if the statute of limitation (SOL) had already expired before the law’s passage. These rulings stand in stark contrast to the vast majority of states which have affirmed the state’s power to revive expired civil claims in the pursuit of justice for survivors.
Now, however, two major victories from the highest courts in North Carolina and Maryland have reinforced what lawyers, advocates, and survivors have long argued: revival laws provide a constitutionally sound mechanism for legislatures to correct the past injustices of overly restrictive SOLs which historically prevented victims from holding their abusers and complicit institutions accountable.
The Supreme Court of North Carolina on Friday upheld the state’s 2019 revival window, dismissing claims that the law violated defendants’ due process rights and noting that the restriction on “retrospective laws” applies only to revival of criminal and certain tax laws. Under the prior law, CSA victims had until age 21 to file a claim against their abuser. The 2019 SAFE Child Act extended that deadline to age 28 and opened a two-year revival window for expired claims, resulting in over 250 claims across the state against perpetrators and institutions including religious entities, schools, and youth-serving organizations.
Just days later, the Maryland Supreme Court delivered another decisive victory for survivors, ruling in favor of the state’s permanent revival window. The Child Victims Act was signed into law in 2023 on the heels of the Attorney General’s report that exposed rampant abuse within the Archdiocese of Baltimore including 600 children abused by more than 150 Catholic priests over an 80-year period.
Opposition over the law’s constitutionality focused on a 2017 version of the law that established a cutoff of age 38 for victims to file claims which defendants argued created a statute of repose that permanently shielded certain defendants from liability. The Court’s majority disagreed, ruling that the provision was a statute of limitation subject to legislative revival and that defendants do not have a vested right to limitations defense from CSA claims.
While courts in Maine and Arkansas cling to outdated constitutional principles that leave survivors without legal recourse and children at risk, their counterparts in North Carolina and Maryland have reaffirmed a critical truth: revival laws are not just constitutional, they are necessary. They provide long-overdue access to justice, expose hidden predators, and compel institutions to adopt stronger child protection measures. Thanks to these just rulings, children in these states are now safer.