Stein hopes to defend SAFE Child Act during state Supreme Court arguments

North Carolina Attorney General Josh Stein is asking the state Supreme Court for time to defend the SAFE Child Act during an oral argument next month. The high court is hearing a series of cases on Sept. 18 dealing with the 2019 state law.

In one case, Cohane v. The Home Missioners of America, Stein seeks five minutes within the standard 60 minutes of argument time for competing lawyers. In a motion filed Friday, Stein indicated that plaintiff Gregory Cohane’s lawyers have agreed to give up five minutes of their time to allow for the attorney general’s arguments.

“This case turns on a question of statutory interpretation regarding the scope of the SAFE Child Act,” wrote lawyers led by state Solicitor General Ryan Park. “Hearing the State’s views, expressed through the Attorney General, would be particularly helpful to the Court in this case, as the Attorney General’s office originally drafted the Act and worked closely with the legislature during deliberations over its passage.”

“The Attorney General can thus provide a helpful perspective on the Act’s scope and purpose,” the document continued.

As solicitor general, Park would be the most likely candidate to present Stein’s views during the oral argument.

Stein is the Democratic nominee in this year’s race for governor of North Carolina. President Biden has nominated Park to serve on the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals.

The 2019 SAFE Child Act allowed alleged victims of child sex abuse to file lawsuits in 2020 and 2021, years after those suits had been barred by the statute of limitations.

All five cases scheduled for oral arguments on Sept. 18 have ties to the challenged law. McKinney v. Goins involves claims against the Gaston County school board. Defendants in other cases include the Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte, Western NC Conference of the United Methodist Church, and Home Missioners of America.

Park filed a court document labeling the SAFE Child Act a “landmark piece of legislation aimed at protecting our State’s children from sexual abuse.”

The Republican-led General Assembly approved the measure with unanimous bipartisan support. The Attorney General’s Office “participated in the legislative process that led to the passage of the SAFE Child Act,” Park wrote.

Park’s court filing labeled the two-year window “an important part of the law.” The document offered two reasons for Stein to file a friend-of-the-court brief representing state government.

“First, the Attorney General has an interest in defending our State’s laws,” Park wrote. “The Attorney General serves as the State’s chief legal officer, and has the authority to ‘defend all actions in the appellate division in which the State shall be interested, or a party.’ Given these roles, the Attorney General has an interest in defending the SAFE Child Act’s revival provision against constitutional challenges.”

“Second, the State has an interest in ensuring that the SAFE Child Act can fulfill one of its core purposes: giving victims of child sexual abuse a meaningful opportunity to seek redress,” Park explained. “Protecting children is a ‘compelling governmental interest.’ That interest is furthered by the availability of civil actions that can deter abusive behavior and provide redress to victims of child sexual abuse.”

Stein’s brief shows that “constitutional text, history, and precedent all demonstrate that the revival provision is constitutional,” Park wrote.

There is no deadline for the state’s highest court to rule on the SAFE Child Act cases after oral arguments in September.