When legislation affects survivors of sexual abuse, we should ask a simple question: Does the proposed law make access to justice easier — or harder? Senate Bill 6239, a bill that would require many survivors of sexual assault to go through a full hearing, with cross-examination, before they can access a trial for claims against the state, does the latter.
As a trial attorney, I’ve spent much of my career representing and advocating for survivors of sexual abuse. I understand both the toll litigation takes on them, as well as the internal mechanics of resolution systems. After reviewing SB 6239, it is clear that the proposed legislation creates a duplicative, cost-intensive process that harms survivors and increases costs for the state.
Supporters of this bill have recently replaced the word “arbitration” with “adjudication.” That change is entirely semantic, and the structure remains the same: Many survivors would first be required to pay $5,000 to participate in a full legal proceeding in the Office of Administrative Hearings. Only then may they proceed to Superior Court for trial, where they pay another fee of about $250.
That is not what an early resolution looks like — that’s simply putting crime victims through two separate trials. For survivors, that means telling their story twice. It means two credibility determinations. Two cross-examinations. It means added delay, expense and traumatization.
For taxpayers and those concerned about protecting state resources, the outcome is no better. SB 6239 does not streamline the legal process. Instead, it layers in a new process on top of the existing system, requiring the state to fund proceedings in two separate forums. It also dramatically increases the money the state will pay to private law firms to defend two cases. The bill is also clear that the existing attorneys general do not have to defend these claims, leaving private defense lawyers to rake in money from taxpayers.
This is not a cost-saving measure — it’s a cost-creating measure. Not only is this harmful to survivors, but it’s also harmful to anyone who cares about proper usage of taxpayer dollars.
Perhaps the most troubling issue of all: The process envisioned by SB 6239 does not yet exist. There is no implementation timeline or established infrastructure. Survivors who have already waited years could be pulled out of court and placed into limbo.
But, there is a better approach. My colleague Becky Roe and I have proposed a tailored Historical Abuse Pre-Filing Claims Commission designed specifically for older abuse claims against the state. It promotes early evaluation and resolution, avoids duplicative proceedings and preserves meaningful access to court.
Good policy should not force people to relive trauma twice. It should not require taxpayers to fund parallel litigation tracks.
Lawmakers in the House should vote no on SB 6239 and pursue an alternative solution that protects survivors and respects public resources.
Survivors deserve their day in court.
Survivors deserve a legal system that supports their constitutional right to pursue justice.
Survivors deserve the Historical Abuse Pre-Filing Claims Commission.
