Track

Status

Governing provision

No limitation, but for a short list — art. 571: “There is no time limitation upon the institution of prosecution for any crime for which the punishment may be death or life imprisonment or for the crime of forcible or second-degree rape (R.S. 14:42.1) or molestation of a juvenile or a person with a physical or mental disability (R.S. 14:81.2).” That list was extended by Acts 2024, No. 698, § 1. 

THIRTY YEARS FROM AGE EIGHTEEN FOR EVERYTHING ELSE — art. 571.1: “Except as provided by Article 571, 572, or any other provision of law that establishes a longer period of limitation, the time within which to institute prosecution of the perpetration or attempted perpetration of, conspiracy to commit, or commission of any sex offense as defined in R.S. 15:541 that involves a victim under eighteen years of age shall be thirty years. This thirty-year period begins to run when the victim attains the age of eighteen.” The deadline is the survivor’s forty-eighth birthday. 

The residual periods — art. 572(A): except as provided in arts. 571 and 571.1, no person shall be prosecuted for an offense not punishable by death or life imprisonment unless prosecution is instituted within six years for a felony necessarily punishable at hard labor, four years for a felony not necessarily punishable at hard labor, two years for a misdemeanor punishable by fine or imprisonment or both, and six months for a misdemeanor punishable only by a fine or forfeiture. 

A DNA and imagery route — art. 572(B)(1): notwithstanding art. 571.1 and art. 572(A), prosecutions for any sex offense may be commenced beyond the ordinary limits “if the identity of the offender is established after the expiration of such time limitation through the use of a DNA profile or newly discovered photographic or video evidence.” Art. 572(B)(2): such a prosecution must be commenced within three years of that identification. Art. 572(B)(4): “This Paragraph shall have retroactive application to crimes committed prior to June 20, 2003.” 

Why the status is “partly removed”: article 571 removes the limitation only for crimes punishable by death or life imprisonment and for three named offenses — forcible rape, second degree rape and molestation of a juvenile. Every other sex offense against a child, as defined in R.S. 15:541, falls under article 571.1 and expires thirty years after the victim turns eighteen. Thirty years is long, and Louisiana is among the more generous states on this measure, but it is a deadline.

La. C.Cr.P. art. 571 — Justia (Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure) 

La. C.Cr.P. art. 571.1 — Justia (2025 Louisiana Laws) 

La. C.Cr.P. art. 572 — Justia (Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure)

It does not prescribe — § 2800.9(A)(1): “An action against a person for sexual abuse of a minor or for physical abuse of a minor resulting in permanent impairment or permanent physical injury or scarring does not prescribe. ‘Abuse’ has the same meaning as provided in Children’s Code Article 603.” 

And separately where there is a conviction — § 2800.9(A)(2): “An action against a person convicted of a crime against the child does not prescribe and may be filed at any time following conviction. ‘Crime against the child’ has the same meaning as provided in Children’s Code Article 603.” 

Certificates of merit for adult plaintiffs — § 2800.9(B): every plaintiff aged twenty-one or older when the action is filed must file certificates executed by the attorney and by a licensed mental health practitioner. The attorney certifies review of the facts, consultation with a Louisiana-licensed practitioner knowledgeable of the relevant issues, and a conclusion that there is reasonable and meritorious cause to file. The practitioner certifies that they have interviewed the plaintiff, are knowledgeable of the facts and issues, and conclude there is a reasonable basis to believe the plaintiff was subject to criminal sexual activity or physical abuse in childhood. § 2800.9(B)(3) allows the attorney to certify instead that the consultation could not be obtained before prescription would impair the action, in which case the two certificates must be filed within sixty days. 

One certificate per defendant, and defendants are not named at first — § 2800.9(C): separate certificates for each defendant. § 2800.9(D): the petition “may not name the defendant or defendants until the court has reviewed the certificates of merit filed and has determined, in camera, based solely on those certificates of merit, that there is reasonable and meritorious cause for filing of the action”, and the duty to give notice does not attach until then. 

A professional sanction — § 2800.9(E): a violation of the certificate requirement “may constitute unprofessional conduct and may be the grounds for discipline against the attorney.” 

Louisiana’s civil elimination is unconditional on the face of the statute — no age cap, no date threshold, no discovery limb needed. What Louisiana adds instead is a procedural gate: an adult plaintiff must clear the certificate-of-merit and in-camera review process before a defendant is even named. That is the same device California, Hawaii and Delaware use, and it is worth tracking separately from the limitation period itself.

La. R.S. 9:2800.9 — Justia (2025 Louisiana Laws)

The provision as it now reads — Acts 2024, No. 481, § 1 amended and reenacted section 2 of Acts 2022, No. 386 to provide: “Any person whose cause of action related to sexual abuse of a minor was barred by liberative prescription shall be permitted to file an action under R.S. 9:2800.9 on or before June 14, 2027. It is the express intent of the legislature to revive until June 14, 2027, any cause of action related to sexual abuse of a minor that previously prescribed under any Louisiana prescriptive period.” 

How it got there — Acts 2021, No. 322, § 2 opened a three-year window from 14 June 2021. Acts 2022, No. 386, § 2 restated it as running to 14 June 2024. Acts 2024, No. 481 (which originated as Senate Bill No. 246 of the 2024 Regular Session and became law without the Governor’s signature) substituted “June 14, 2027” for “June 14, 2024” in both sentences. Section 3 of Acts 2024, No. 789 fixed the effective date of Act 481 at 14 June 2024, so that it took effect on the very day the old window would otherwise have closed, leaving no gap. 

The litigation, in order — on 22 March 2024 the Louisiana Supreme Court held in Bienvenu v. Defendant 1, 382 So.3d 38, that defendants have a vested property right in accrued prescription, that the legislature lacks authority to revive prescribed claims, and that section 2 of Acts 322 and section 2 of Acts 386 were unconstitutional. On rehearing, on 12 June 2024, the Court VACATED that decree: Bienvenu v. Defendant 1, 386 So.3d 280. 

What the rehearing decision holds — per Weimer, C.J.: the legislature clearly intended retroactive application; the right to plead accrued prescription is a vested property right protected by the due process guarantee of La. Const. art. I, § 2; but that protection “is not unqualified protection, but protection from arbitrary and unreasonable action”, so a substantive due process analysis is required. Overruling Burmaster v. Plaquemines Parish Government, 982 So.2d 795, the Court held that “[t]he legislature is free to enact laws which operate retroactively as long as those laws do not violate the limits imposed on the legislature through the due process clause.” Applying rational-basis review to what it characterized as social welfare legislation, it found the revival provision serves three legitimate and compelling interests articulated by the Act’s House sponsor: identifying hidden child predators so children are not abused in future; shifting the costs of abuse from victims and society to those who caused it; and educating the public about the prevalence and harm of child sexual abuse. The decree: original decree vacated, district court judgment affirmed, remanded. 

A detail from the opinion worth keeping — the Court recorded, from the legislative debate, that “child sexual abuse is a unique tort in which the average victim does not come forward until they are 52 years old”, and that “[f]or many victims of child sexual abuse, the revival provision represents their first and only opportunity to bring suit.” The Act passed 134–0 and 128–0. 

It was a fractured court — the rehearing opinion is “Per Weimer, C.J., with two Justices joining, one Justice additionally concurring, and one Justice concurring in the result.” Crichton, J. concurred separately, stressing that the decision to overrule Burmaster was crucial and cautioning that “[r]evival is an extreme exercise of legislative power”. Griffin, J. concurred in the result, noting that references to vested rights present in the 1921 Constitution were removed in the framing of the 1974 Constitution. Genovese, J. dissented, joined in substance by Hughes, J., warning that the ruling “elevates a legislative act over a constitutional right and obliterates the vested right of accrued prescription”. 

The legislature’s own intervention — Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 26 of the 2024 Regular Session, reproduced in the editors’ notes to R.S. 9:2800.9, records the legislature’s formal response to the March 2024 decision, resolves “that laws requiring claims of sexual abuse of a minor be filed within a certain period of time … do not create vested rights for the alleged perpetrator”, and directs “that a copy of this Resolution be transmitted individually to the justices of the Louisiana Supreme Court.” The Court granted rehearing and reversed itself three months later. 

This is the single most consequential correction in this review so far. Louisiana is one of very few jurisdictions with a general revival window open right now — open to any survivor whose claim prescribed under any Louisiana prescriptive period, not confined to one defendant or one bankruptcy — and it closes on 14 June 2027. The tracker records it as closed. A survivor or a lawyer relying on the tracker today would conclude they were out of time when in fact they have until June 2027.

La. R.S. 9:2800.9 — Justia (2025 Louisiana Laws); the revival provisions are in the session-law notes to this section

the tracker carries “Louisiana | Bienvenu v. Defendant 1 | 386 So.3d 280; 2023-CC-01194 (La. 6/12/24) | 2024 | On rehearing, VACATED its original ruling and UPHELD the §9:2800.9 revival (Acts 322/386) as constitutional and retroactive. Revival window ran 14 Jun 2021–14 Jun 2024 (now closed). Louisiana revival = closed (upheld), not contested.” The holding is described correctly. The window dates are wrong: Acts 2024, No. 481 amended and reenacted section 2 of Acts 2022, No. 386 to extend the window from 14 June 2024 to 14 June 2027. It is open today, which is why the revival status on this page is “Window open” rather than “Window closed”.