Months after Louisiana’s supreme court upheld the constitutionality of a state law that let child molestation victims sue for long-ago abuse, despite arguments to the contrary by a Roman Catholic diocese, another church organization is asking the federal government to strike the statute down.
Behind the request in question are the Dominican Sisters of Peace and a law firm that boasts about having represented Catholic institutions in Louisiana courts for more than a century. Another of the law firm’s clients in question, the archdiocese of New Orleans, is offering clergy molestation victims less than 10% of what they are requesting in a bankruptcy settlement, in part by arguing the so-called “look-back window” law doesn’t apply to more than 600 abuse claims.
The law that the Dominican Sisters and their Denechaud and Denechaud attorneys are targeting doesn’t exclusively apply in cases of Catholic clergy abuse. But the state supreme court’s decision to uphold the look-back window had major implications for the New Orleans archdiocese.
The archdiocese – Louisiana’s largest and the US’s second oldest – filed for federal bankruptcy protection in 2020 after being faced with numerous lawsuits related to a decades-old clerical molestation crisis. Archdiocesan attorneys long maintained that those cases had been filed years beyond pertinent deadlines, or statutes of limitation, meaning claimants had the choice of either settling for relatively cheap or potentially getting nothing.
The sisters are challenging the constitutionality of the look-back window in response to a lawsuit from a man who alleges being sexually abused as a child at a parochial school in Louisiana’s capital of Baton Rouge. They and their attorneys maintain that prior Louisiana law gave them the right to not be sued past applicable statutes of limitation, and to remove that right now is unconstitutional.
That argument echoes the Lafayette diocese’s unsuccessful one before the state supreme court. But the Dominican Sisters have now taken that position to Baton Rouge’s federal courthouse. In that venue, they can appeal any unfavorable ruling on the issue to the US fifth circuit – widely perceived as an extremely conservative bench that usually favors religious organizations.
“If anyone could undo the will of the Louisiana state supreme court, the Catholic church can and will,” the plaintiff in that case said in an interview with the Guardian.
The plaintiff said he considered it hypocritical for a prominent Catholic leader such as the New Orleans archbishop, Gregory Aymond – who heads the state’s conference of bishops – to publicly profess his moral support for the efforts by victims of clergy molestation to be made whole while his attorneys are simultaneously “continuing to fight” maneuvers that improve the potential value of survivors’ claims for damages.
That plaintiff’s attorney, Kristi Schubert, says she isn’t surprised by the constitutional challenge. She said it has no merit, repeats failed arguments and comes off as a brazen tactical delay by the church to save money.
“If Catholic groups use bogus constitutional challenges to delay justice for another three years, we could see 15-20% of survivors die, give up hope or otherwise drop out of litigation,” Schubert said. “That would save the church millions upon millions of dollars.”
When Louisiana’s legislature in 2021 enacted the look-back window eliminating those statutes of limitation, including retroactively for a limited period, the bishop conference was the only institution that opposed the law’s passage.
Then, in March, the Roman Catholic diocese of Lafayette – about three hours west of New Orleans – persuaded the state supreme court to nullify the look-back law. The Lafayette church’s effort received a supportive legal brief from the bishops conference, which Denechaud prepared.
The supreme court, by a vote of 4-3, at first said alleged abusers as well as those who enabled them had acquired a “vested” property right to not be sued after the statutes of limitation expired. But two justices, Scott Crichton and Piper Griffin, subsequently changed their minds.
Crichton decided that he had given too much weight to those rights over abuse survivors’ rights to due process. And Griffin noted that the most recent version of Louisiana’s constitution – ratified in 1974 – eliminated mention of those vested rights.
Both judges then reversed their votes, a rare outcome that led to the look-back law being upheld by a margin of 5-2 in June.
That reversal hasn’t gone well for Louisiana’s Catholic institutions in particular. The archdiocese offered on 13 September to settle its bankruptcy case for $62.5m based on the assumption that the look-back window doesn’t apply to more than 500 clergy abuse claimants, who are collectively seeking about $1bn.
In a court filing, the church said it “believes that the revival window is inapplicable to the child sexual abuse proofs of claim filed in the [bankruptcy]. The [archdiocese] notes that the [survivors and their lawyers] may disagree with the [church’s] position.”
The archdiocese contended in a statement Friday that federal law shields it from actions taken after it filed for bankruptcy protection, though the abuse claimants dispute that. The organization also said its bankruptcy settlement plan assigns it “no role in valuing the claims” from abuse survivors in the case.
Yet another Catholic organization seeking an alternate way to attack that state supreme court ruling is the Jesuit Catholic religious order and its namesake high school in New Orleans. In a state lawsuit filed by a plaintiff alleging childhood sexual molestation at the hands of an abusive custodial crew, the Jesuits and the school have continued questioning the constitutionality of the look-back law, even using some of the same Denechaud lawyers. Jesuit High filed legal briefs in support of the Lafayette diocese’s unsuccessful attempts to overturn the look-back law, too.
The plaintiff in that case as well as his attorneys, Richard Trahant, Soren Gisleson and John Denenea, said re-litigating the look-back window’s constitutionality would re-traumatize survivors. And, to them, there is only one conclusion to draw from that.
“These organizations don’t know when to take ‘no’ for an answer,” they said in a statement.
Denechaud and Jesuit did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
