PROVIDENCE (RI)
Rhode Island Current [Rhode Island]
May 11, 2026
By Christopher Shea
For the first time in 20 years, the Rhode Island Senate may ask the state’s Supreme Court to give its opinion on legislation lawmakers are considering.
The Senate Committee on Judiciary on Thursday will consider a resolution asking the Rhode Island Supreme Court whether it would be constitutional to revive previously expired civil claims of sexual abuse against institutions such as the Roman Catholic Diocese of Providence.
The resolution sponsored by Sen. Matthew LaMountain, a Warwick Democrat, comes as the Senate weighs legislation introduced by Sen. Mark McKenney, a Warwick Democrat, at the request of the Rhode Island Office of Attorney General. The bill would create a “revival window” allowing previously expired claims against institutions and supervisors accused of failing to protect children from sexual abuse.
“As a former prosecutor, and as a parent, I am going to do everything in my power to ensure that everyone responsible for the heinous abuse of children entrusted to their care is held accountable,” LaMountain, who chairs the committee, said in a statement.
McKenney’s bill would build on the state’s 2019 law that gave victims 35 years to sue individual priests, teachers, coaches and others who molested them after reaching adulthood. If approved by lawmakers, the window would open on July 1, 2026, and close on June 30, 2028.
Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha recommended the measure in his 282-page report released March 4 detailing decades of abuse by clergy covered up by the Diocese of Providence. Companion legislation sponsored by Rep. Carol Hagan McEntee, a South Kingstown Democrat whose sister is a survivor of clergy abuse, passed the House on April 7.
“They have every right to pass the bill as presented,” McEntee said in an interview Monday. “This is just postponing.”
McKenney did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
LaMountain’s request is a rare moment for the General Assembly to reach out to the Supreme Court for its stance on legislation. The last time any chamber did so was in 2007 when the House asked if a proposal that would have allowed legislators to sit on and appoint members to the Coastal Resources Management Council violated the state’s separation of powers clause.
The Senate’s most recent request was in 2006 when it asked the high court whether the chamber still had final approval over then-Gov. Donald Carcieri’s appointments to the Beacon Mutual Insurance Co. board.
The Rhode Island court declined to rule on either request.
“In the ‘80s and ‘90s this was not a rare occurrence — every year or two for a request for an advisory opinion coming from either the Senate or the House,” Steven Brown, executive director for the ACLU of Rhode Island, said in an interview. “For reasons unknown, it’s dried up over the last 20 years.”
LaMountain’s resolution asks the Rhode Island Supreme Court to weigh in on two questions: Does McKenney’s bill violate constitutional protections for due process and equal protection? And does the legislation improperly allow the General Assembly to revive claims previously dismissed by the courts through final judgments?
“Failure to conduct this diligence would force those who bring a case to relive their trauma several times during judicial proceedings, likely over the course of several years, potentially only to have the underlying statute overturned in the courts,” LaMountain said. “I believe that the victims, who have undergone so much, deserve an efficient means of redress, and the most direct way to have the constitutional question resolved is through an advisory opinion.”
The resolution asks for an answer on an expedited basis. But Michael Yelnosky, a professor at Roger Williams University School of Law, has his doubts the court will give its answer by the time the legislative session wraps up.
“There will be amicus briefs being filed all over the place” he said. “And with a case with this much complexity, they’ll want to hear oral arguments — and that takes a while.”
LaMountain said clarification is needed after the bill’s initial hearing on April 30 generated “conflicting opinions” on its constitutionality.
Cary Silverman, a Maryland-based attorney with the American Tort Reform Association, told lawmakers during the April 30 hearing that organizations facing potential lawsuits likely wouldn’t even have the paper records to defend themselves in court.
In most cases, he said they’d have to settle the negligence complaints against them.
“That’s not how the civil justice system is supposed to operate for any type of civil action,” Silverman said. “This is a principle of due process.”
Written testimony submitted by the American Tort Reform Association notes that the state’s Supreme Court also determined in 1996 that the General Assembly cannot revive time-barred claims.
The Most Rev. Bernard A. Healey, chairman of the Rhode Island Catholic Conference, raised similar concerns about an institution’s ability to defend itself from decades-old claims in his letter of opposition to the Senate Committee on Judiciary.
“Statutes of limitations are designed to enable claims to be investigated and decided fairly while facts are fresh, memories are vivid, and relevant evidence is still available,” Healey wrote.
Retired U.S. District Court Judge William E. Smith found no constitutional issues in his supportive testimony to lawmakers and saw no need for the Senate to wait for a Supreme Court opinion before voting on the bill.
“By anticipating how the Rhode Island Supreme Court might rule in a challenge to this bill, the legislature (through this committee) would effectively abdicate its lead policy making role to the Supreme Court,” Smith wrote.
By anticipating how the Rhode Island Supreme Court might rule in a challenge to this bill, the legislature (through this committee) would effectively abdicate its lead policy making role to the Supreme Court. Retired U.S. District Court
– Judge William E. Smith in written testimony
Smith acknowledged the importance of state courts, but wrote “it is crucial that we not let the courts become the primary policy making institutions in our government.” He also noted the 2019 law to extend the statute of limitations for sexual abuse cases did not extend to institutions such as the Catholic Church.
McKenney’s bill would be the chance for the General Assembly to clarify its intent, Smith added.
“If you do not believe that institutions should be accountable, then vote against the bill,” he wrote. “But if you believe that sex abuse victims should be able to hold institutions such as the Diocese accountable through the legal system, then you must vote in favor of the bill.”
McKenney’s bill was held by the Senate Committee on Judiciary for further study, as is standard procedure for a first look by a legislative panel.