- The North Carolina Supreme Court devoted Wednesday's calendar to cases involving the 2019 SAFE Child Act.
- A challenged provision in the act opened a two-year window in 2020 and 2021 for alleged victims of child sexual abuse to file lawsuits that otherwise would have been barred by the statute of limitations.
- Much of the Supreme Court debate involved the General Assembly's ability to rewrite rules regarding the statute of limitations.
North Carolina’s highest court devoted its calendar Wednesday to hearing cases challenging part of the state’s 2019 SAFE Child Act. That law opened a two-year window for alleged victims of child sexual abuse to file lawsuits that had been barred by the statute of limitations.
Critics warned the state Supreme Court that permitting the two-year “revival” provision could have wide-ranging unintended negative consequences.
“The principal question before the court is whether the court should change the meaning of the constitution and overturn 90 years of precedent, overturn the will of the people as reflected in the 1971 constitution, and hold that the General Assembly can revive 50-year-old civil claims when the price for doing so would be: first, the destruction of the vested-rights doctrine that has protected the people of this state from governmental overreach for over 200 years; second, upsetting more than 90 years of settled reliance and expectations in a way that would destroy due process for defendants; and third, give license to future versions of the General Assembly to revive whatever claims it wants when it wants,” argued attorney Robert King at the start of the day’s first case, McKinney v. Goins.
King represents the Gaston County school board, a defendant in the McKinney case. While arguing on the school board’s behalf, King mentioned Clark Methodist Church in Bladen County, a client in a separate case filed during the two-year SAFE Child Act revival window of 2020 and 2021.
“This is a church that has a couple dozen members,” King said. “They have been accused of being liable for abuse … that occurred in or around the 1960s. There is no member of that church today who was a member in 1960. We can’t find anybody who was around in 1960. … How in the world is Clark Methodist Church going to defend the claim that is brought against them?”
Beyond the legal challenges for Gaston schools, the Bladen County church, and other defendants, King warned that upholding the two-year revival window could open the door to future lawsuits in other areas.
“We can’t foresee all the problems that is going to create,” King argued. “To get from here to where the plaintiffs want you to go, you have to determine that the General Assembly can revive any claim that they want. There is no logical way to limit it to child abuse cases.”
“Future iterations of the General Assembly can bring back claims for sexual harassment, for products liability, for racial discrimination,” he added. “That destroys the stability on which this state is built and on which our justice system is founded.”
State Solicitor General Ryan Park defended the SAFE Child Act, “a landmark law that the General Assembly passed unanimously to protect our state’s children from child sexual abuse.”
Park rejected the defendants’ reliance on Wilkes County v. Forester, a 1933 precedent that struck down an earlier state law changing a statute of limitations. “Nothing in the text of our constitution remotely forecloses the General Assembly from passing a law of this kind,” Park said.
“It really would turn our legal system upside down to say that this vested right not to be subject to liability for child sexual abuse tort claims is somehow at the very top of the hierarchy of rights. That’s just not how we do constitutional law today,” Park argued.
Bobby Jenkins argued on behalf of the three plaintiffs in the McKinney case. He defended the General Assembly’s approval of the SAFE Child Act. “Does it violate an express provision of our constitution beyond a reasonable doubt? The answer is no, and I would submit it is a clear no,” he said.
Jenkins rejected arguments about the two-year revival window’s potential consequences. “The only question before this court is can the General Assembly revive a previously time-barred common law tort claim,” he said. “We’re not trying to upend the entire universe of due-process jurisprudence.”
Justice Richard Dietz signaled an interest in allowing the General Assembly latitude in changing the statute of limitations. “You can change the rules of the game, even while a lawsuit is pending,” Dietz said. “If you can do that, you can certainly change the rules of the game when the lawsuit hasn’t even been filed yet.”
“That’s the situation for your client,” Dietz said to King.
Justice Trey Allen questioned why King focused so much attention on the 1933 Wilkes case and the 1971 state constitution. “it sounds like you’re asking us to ignore the precedent you don’t like and follow the precedent that you do like,” Allen said.
Justice Anita Earls noted that recent state Supreme Court opinions have determined that the General Assembly is allowed to act unless an express provision within the state constitution blocks that action.
“By my count, 44 states have asked this question: … Can you change statute of limitations and apply it retroactively,” Earls said. “Thirty-two have said, yes, you can. What would we find in the North Carolina Constitution that would say our state is intending to give less protection under our law of the land clause to victims of child sexual abuse?”
Justice Allison Riggs sat out the discussion. She wrote the majority opinion in the state Appeals Court’s 2-1 ruling in September 2023 upholding the SAFE Child Act in the McKinney case. She will not vote when the state Supreme Court issues its decision.
Wednesday’s state Supreme Court calendar also featured SAFE Child Act cases involving the Home Missioners of America, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte, and the Western North Carolina Conference of the United Methodist Church.
There is no deadline for the court to issue decisions in any of the cases.