PROVIDENCE (RI)
Boston Globe
May 15, 2026
By Edward Fitzpatrick
“It is, in my view, punting, passing the buck, failing to carry out our responsibility as senators,” Senator McKenney said of a resolution seeking court advice. “It is, for the survivors of the abuse a timid, feeble action.”
PROVIDENCE — In passionate testimony Thursday, Rhode Island’s attorney general, a retired judge, and a clergy abuse victim called for the Senate to act now — and not wait for court advice — on a bill allowing expired civil claims for sexual abuse against institutions such as the Roman Catholic Church.
Attorney General Peter F. Neronha testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee, saying it would be a mistake for the Senate — and a victory for the Catholic Church — if senators passed a resolution asking the state Supreme Court to provide an advisory opinion on the bill’s constitutionality.
Neronha, who backed the bill when he issued a scathing report on clergy sexual abuse in March, noted his office has defended the constitutionality of other laws, including truck tolls and gun legislation, and lawmakers never sought an advisory opinion on a controversial shoreline protection bill.
A weekday briefing from veteran Rhode Island reporters, focused on the things that matter most in the Ocean State.
“If we submit to this committee that this legislation is constitutional, I would ask you to take it on faith that we are correct,” he said.
Neronha, who submitted a 15-page letter to the committee, said the Supreme Court is unlikely to weigh in on a proposed law without having an actual case before it. “The right thing to do here is put this to a vote,” he said. “Let’s know where people stand.”
The Senate Judiciary Committee did not vote on the resolution Thursday, and no vote is scheduled yet.
But Judiciary Committee Chairman Matthew L. LaMountain, the Warwick Democrat who introduced the resolution, argued that “seeking an advisory opinion is the most efficient, direct, and responsible way to proceed.”
The abuse detailed in Neronha’s report is “horrific, deeply disturbing, and impossible to ignore,” LaMountain said. As a former prosecutor and as a parent, Lamountain said he will do all he can to hold child abusers accountable.
But legislators also must ensure the laws they pass are constitutional, he said, and the proposed bill “raises extraordinarily significant constitutional questions concerning retroactive liability, civil due process, equal protection, and the separation of powers.”
The legislation would open a “revival window” allowing previously expired claims against institutions and supervisors responsible for enabling or covering up sexual abuse. That window would open on July 1, 2026, and close on June 30, 2028.
On April 7, the House voted 68 to 5 in favor of the legislation.
LaMountain said that in the 1996 case of Kelly v. Marcantonio, the Supreme Court ruled that legislation reviving time-barred claims may violate constitutional due process protections.
LaMountain said he disagrees with those who suggest “the General Assembly should simply pass the bill immediately and allow the courts to sort it out later.” He said, “This process is not about avoiding accountability. It is about ensuring accountability survives constitutional scrutiny.”
Senator Mark P. McKenney, the Warwick Democrat who sponsored the Senate version of the clergy abuse bill, said he is disappointed by the proposal to wait for a court opinion.
“It is, in my view, punting, passing the buck, failing to carry out our responsibility as senators,” McKenney said. “It is, for the survivors of the abuse a timid, feeble action.”
Neronha’s clergy abuse report shows church officials “failing to report incidents, covering up, failing to disclose facts, maintaining a system of handling these crimes internally separate from our justice system,” McKenney said. “Had any other corporation engaged in that conduct, it would have been held accountable.”
McKenney said it would be a “travesty” if his bill dies without getting a vote on the Senate floor. He said others have suggested that the resolution seeking court advice represents an attempt to kill the underlying bill.
“I can’t look into people’s minds, but what I can recognize is that’s the perception that is out there,” McKenney said. “I do know that the language of this resolution supports that. It’s clearly aimed at getting an opinion that the bill violates our Constitution.”
House Judiciary Committee Chairwoman Carol Hagan McEntee — whose sister, Dr. Ann Hagan Webb, was sexually abused by a priest — sponsored the House version of the bill.
On Thursday, McEntee testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee, noting that after the House passed the bill last year, Senate leaders told her they were waiting to see Neronha’s report on clergy abuse.
“Well, you have it, and now look what you’re doing,” McEntee said. “Come on. Vote for this bill. Justice delayed is justice denied.”
Retired US District Court Judge William E. Smith submitted a five-page letter to the committee, saying that while the Senate can request a Supreme Court opinion, “I believe this step is misguided and will result in the Supreme Court refusing to issue an advisory opinion.”
Smith also testified Thursday, telling the committee, “If you pass this resolution, the House will pass its own resolution, and that resolution will look very different than this one to the Supreme Court justices that says this is a hot political potato.”
The Supreme Court will want to base any such decision on a lower court record, Smith said. “Appellate judges operate on a principle of percolation — the idea that cases get to the appellate courts after they percolate up through the lower courts,” he said.
Also, Smith argued that the clergy abuse bill is constitutional, but he said it presents “a very difficult constitutional question.”
That difficulty stems in part from the constitution’s 1986 Victims’ Rights Amendment, which he said has been overlooked in previous litigation and legislative debate over the modification of the statute of limitations for sexual assault claims.
“It is the only constitution in the United States that contains a victim’s rights amendment,” he said, “and it gives you the General Assembly the right to enact legislation that provides a vehicle for compensation for victims.”
James Scanlan — who was was sexually abused in the late 1970s by a Boston College High School priest, teacher, and hockey coach James Talbot — told the committee that while 13 people came forward, Talbot told a parole board there were actually 89 victims.
“So when we look at this — as we kick the can down the road, looking for an advisory opinion, probably deferring the legislation another year — we’re putting more kids at risk,” Scanlan said.
Bobbi Houllahan told the committee that her son, Robert Houllahan, was “horribly sexually abused as a second-grader” by the Rev. Normand Demers in the Diocese of Providence. And she said thefamilies of clergy abuse victims “feel betrayed.”
The resolution seeking a Supreme Court opinion amounts to a “legal way to kill the bill,” Houllahan told senators. “May your family never be touched by the covert corruption of the Diocese of Providence.”
Edward Fitzpatrick can be reached at edward.fitzpatrick@globe.com. Follow him @FitzProv.