386 So.3d 280
La.2024Background
- The Louisiana Legislature enacted Acts 322 (2021) and 386 (2022), which retroactively revive previously time-barred claims for sexual abuse of minors.
- Plaintiffs brought claims of childhood sexual abuse that would have otherwise been barred by prescription (statute of limitations).
- The district court found the revival statutes constitutional and overruled the defendants' prescription defense.
- On original review, the Louisiana Supreme Court found these revival provisions unconstitutional, but granted rehearing to revisit this decision.
- The case turned on whether the legislature could retroactively revive prescribed claims consistent with the Louisiana Constitution’s due process guarantees.
- On rehearing, the majority vacated the prior opinion, affirmed the district court, and held the revival statutes constitutional.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Louisiana’s legislature can retroactively revive prescribed claims for sexual abuse of minors without violating due process | Bienvenu argued that retroactivity is constitutional because the right to assert prescription is not absolute and the legislature has a compelling public interest in offering redress to child sexual abuse victims | Defendants argued that the right to assert the defense of liberative prescription is a vested property right protected by due process and cannot be taken away retroactively | The Court held the retroactive revival is constitutional because it is rationally related to a legitimate government interest and passes substantive due process review |
Key Cases Cited
- Louisiana Health Service and Indem. Co. v. McNamara, 561 So.2d 712 (La. 1990) (distinguishes liberative prescription from procedural bars, emphasizing extinguishment of civil obligations)
- Falgout v. Dealers Truck Equipment Co., 748 So.2d 399 (La. 1999) (discusses vested property rights in prescription under Louisiana law)
- Chance v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 635 So.2d 177 (La. 1994) (clarifies vested right to assert prescription accrues when prescriptive period elapses)
- Bazley v. Tortorich, 397 So.2d 475 (La. 1981) (defines the standard for substantive due process review of social and economic legislation)
- Progressive Security Insurance Co. v. Foster, 711 So.2d 675 (La. 1998) (substantive due process protects from arbitrary and unreasonable legislative action)
- Babineaux v. Judiciary Comm’n., 341 So.2d 396 (La. 1976) (explains the essence of substantive due process as protection from arbitrary action)