By: Emily Haglund
On January 31, 2025, the North Carolina Supreme Court (the “Court”) issued multiple opinions upholding the SAFE Child Act’s (the “Act”) revival provision, marking a victory for child sexual abuse victims in North Carolina.[1]
The Act, which aims to “protect children from sexual abuse and to strengthen and modernize sexual assault laws,” was unanimously adopted in 2019,[2] extending the civil statute of limitations to twenty-eight years old for individuals who were sexually abused under the age of eighteen.[3] Furthermore, effective from the beginning of January 2020 until the end of December 2021, the Act “revives any civil action for child sexual abuse otherwise time-barred under G.S. 1-52.”[4] This “revival provision” “opened a window for adults who experienced sexual abuse as children to recover for that abuse under tort law, even if the statute of limitations on their claims had since passed.”[5]
Cases Decided by the Court on January 31, 2025
On January 31, 2025, the Court issued a decision in McKinney v. Goins,[6] one of the cases brought under the Act.[7] In McKinney, the Plaintiffs sought damages from the Gaston County Board of Education (the “Board”) under the Act’s revival provision.[8] The Board, however, argued that the revival provision in the Act “unlawfully interfered with constitutionally protected vested rights,” thus violating the North Carolina Constitution’s (the “Constitution”) Law of the Land Clause.[9] The Board also suggested that the Ex Post Facto Clause, which prohibits retroactive criminal and tax laws, supported its interpretation of the Law of the Land Clause.[10] The Court considered whether the revival of a tort claim’s statute of limitations violates a constitutionally protected vested right and ultimately found that the statute of limitations falls outside of the vested rights doctrine, concluding that the text of the Constitution, the historical context in which it was enacted, and precedents demonstrate that the Constitution does not prohibit a revival window.[11]
The Court also issued a decision in Cohane v. Home Missioners of America,[12] a companion case to McKinney.[13] In Cohane, the Court considered whether the Act authorized suits against only abusers or if it also authorized suits against the “organizations, institutions, and parties that employed or supervised the abuser or otherwise condoned, ratified, or facilitated the abuse.”[14] The Court held that the Act revives claims against both abusers and enablers, stating that “[t]he text and context of section 4.2(b) of the SAFE Child Act confirm that the temporary revival provision authorizes claims against alleged sexual abusers of children and their enablers alike.”[15]
However, the Plaintiffs in the consolidated Doe v. Roman Catholic Diocese and Doe 1k v. Roman Catholic Diocese cases did not achieve their desired outcomes under the Act, as they encountered a different constitutional issue.[16] While the Court said that the Act would have revived the Plaintiffs’ otherwise time-barred claims, it noted a “glaring problem— plaintiffs already brought those claims over a decade ago and courts already entered final judgments dismissing those claims with prejudice because they were time-barred.”[17] Citing the doctrine of res judicata, the Court stated that the Act “cannot set aside a final judgment of the judicial branch.”[18]
Support for the Court’s Decision to Uphold the Revival Provision
While the Court did not rule for the Plaintiffs in the consolidated Roman Catholic Diocese cases, the attorney for the Plaintiffs told Law360 that “even though his clients were not successful . . . in reviving their claims, they played important roles in keeping the SAFE Child Act on the books.”[19]
Attorney General Jeff Jackson also showed gratitude for the Court’s decision to uphold the SAFE Child Act’s revival provision.[20] Regarding the ruling in McKinney, he said that “[b]y upholding the SAFE Child Act’s lookback window today, the North Carolina Supreme Court acknowledged what we know to be true: it can take years for people to process the trauma of childhood abuse and victims should have the opportunity to hold their abusers accountable in court. Today’s ruling is also a continued charge to the rest of us to do everything we can to keep our children safe.”[21]
Governor Jeff Stein stated, “[t]here is nothing more important than keeping kids safe. I am pleased that the courts upheld this crucial part of the SAFE Child Act so that abusers who commit these heinous acts can be held accountable for their actions. People who were abused as children will have the opportunity to face their abusers and seek justice.”[22]
According to The Charlotte Observer, approximately 450 plaintiffs filed about 250 lawsuits under the revival provision of the Act.[23] While these cases were stalled as challenges to the Act worked their way up to the Court, the Court’s decision to uphold the Act’s revival provision means that hundreds of North Carolina victims might now be able to recover damages for the abuse they endured as children.[24]
[1] David Minsky, NC Justices Rule Abuse Law is Legal, Exempts Resolved Suits, Law360 (January 31, 2025, 10:23 PM), https://www.law360.com/northcarolina/articles/2291759/nc-justices-rule-abuse-law-is-legal-exempts-resolved-suits.
[2] SAFE Child Act, 2019 N.C. Sess. Laws 245.
[3] SAFE Child Act, U.S. Dep’t of Just., https://ncdoj.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/SAFE-Child-Fact-Sheet_Final_Nov2019.pdf (last visited Feb. 5, 2025).
[4] SAFE Child Act, 2019 N.C. Sess. Laws 245.
[5] Cohane v. Home Missioners of Am., No. 278A23, 2025 N.C. LEXIS 64, at *2—3 (N.C. Jan. 31, 2025).
[6] No. 109PA22-2, 2025 N.C. LEXIS 65, at *1 (N.C. Jan. 31, 2025).
[7] Id.
[8] Id. at *4–5.
[9] Id. at *3.
[10] Id. at *25.
[11] Id. at *36.
[12] Cohane, supra note 5, at *1.
[13] Id. at *2.
[14] Id. at *3.
[15] Id. at *17.
[16] No. 167PA22, 2025 N.C. LEXIS 70, at *2 (N.C. Jan. 31, 2025).
[17] Id.
[18] Id. at *9.
[19] Minsky, supra note 1.
[20] See North Carolina Supreme Court Upholds the SAFE Child Act, N.C. Dep’t of Just. (Jan. 31, 2025), https://ncdoj.gov/north-carolina-supreme-court-upholds-the-safe-child-act/.
[21] Id.
[22] Id.
[23] Virginia Bridges & Cathy Clabby, NC Supreme Court Upholds Child Sexual Abuse Survivors’ Right to Sue Years Later, Charlotte Observer (Feb. 3, 2025, 7:14 PM), https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article299649359.html.
[24] Id.
