The Supreme Court of the State of Colorado struck down the state’s Child Sexual Abuse Accountability Act (CSAAA) on Tuesday, ruling that the law violates the state constitution and is “unconstitutionally retrospective.” Justice Monica M. Márquez authored the opinion of the court. 

The court ruled that the CSAA violates Article II, Section 11 of the Colorado Constitution, also known as the retrospectivity clause. This section forbids the state legislature from passing “ex post facto” laws. It is based on Article I Section 9 of the US Constitution, which prevents Congress from passing these laws.

The court held that the CSAAA is unconstitutionally retrospective because it creates a new cause of action for conduct that predated the act and would have been time-barred by the claim’s statute of limitation. The court noted that the retrospectivity clause prevents legislators from “changing the rules after the fact.”

The Colorado General Assembly passed the CSAAA in 2021. The law creates a statutory cause of action for victims of sexual misconduct that occurred while the victim was a minor participating in a youth-related program. Under the law, a victim could sue an actor and organization for sexual misconduct, but an organization could only be sued if it knew or should have known about the risk of sexual misconduct. Additionally, the law created a three-year window for victims to sue for misconduct that occurred between 1960 and January 1, 2022.

In this case, when victims sued for previous sexual misconduct, the trial court dismissed the case, ruling that the law was unconstitutional. The plaintiffs appealed, and the Colorado Supreme Court granted their petition for writ of certiorari under C.A.R. 50 because the matter involves a matter that is of “sufficient public importance.” The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision.

The Colorado Supreme Court noted that the CSAAA unlawfully “attaches liability to conduct that predates the Act and for which previously available causes of action would be time-barred.” The court’s decision only applies to claims that are already time-barred by the statute of limitations. The court noted that it understands “the General Assembly’s desire to right the wrongs of [the] past” but says it “may accomplish its ends only through constitutional means.”