Fact check: Can the statute of limitations for sexual assault be waived or extended in certain cases?

1. Why some states are rewriting the clock on survivors’ claims

Legislatures are actively changing civil limitation periods to give survivors more time to pursue claims, especially for childhood sexual abuse; California expanded and in some respects eliminated civil deadlines, creating extended windows such as 22 years after turning 18 or alternate discovery-based periods, and implemented temporary lookback windows to revive previously time-barred claims ^{[1] [2]}. Michigan and Missouri proposals similarly push statutory endpoints outward, with Michigan’s May 2025 Senate bill proposing a ten-year filing window or seven years post-discovery with an age cutoff at 42, and Missouri’s February 2025 bill extending childhood abuse claims to age 41 while raising wider statutory debates ^{[3] [7]}. These changes reflect a policy judgment that trauma, delayed disclosure, and evidentiary discovery justify longer civil access to courts.

2. Civil vs. criminal: the law’s different tracks and practical limits

Reform efforts have primarily targeted civil claims, where plaintiffs sue individuals or institutions for damages, and states are more willing to extend or eliminate civil deadlines than to alter criminal statutes of limitations. Courts have limited the retroactive application of extensions in at least one high-profile matter; a ruling found the Nassar-related extension was not retroactive, illustrating that even when legislatures extend windows, those extensions may not apply to older conduct unless lawmakers explicitly provide for retroactivity ^[4]. Even where reporting remains possible years later, practical hurdles — degraded evidence, lost witnesses, and investigatory constraints — can blunt the effect of longer statutory windows ^[5].

3. Canada’s different approach: no clock for reporting criminal sexual assault

Canada stands apart in criminal law by effectively having no statute of limitations for reporting sexual assault, allowing survivors to report at any time; this removes a legal cutoff but does not erase the evidentiary challenges of proving long-ago offenses ^[5]. On the civil side, Ontario’s 2016 amendment to its Limitations Act removed limitation periods for civil claims based on sexual assault, giving survivors the right to sue without a statutory deadline and aligning civil policy with the view that trauma can delay legal action ^[6]. These changes demonstrate a consistent policy choice in Canada to prioritize access to remedies over temporal certainty.

4. Retroactivity fights: courts versus legislatures over older cases

A recurring flashpoint is whether extensions apply to pre-existing, already-expired claims; courts have sometimes refused to apply new extensions retroactively, as in the Nassar-related decision, limiting the reach of legislative reform and leaving many survivors without newly created remedies unless statutes expressly provide for revival ^[4]. Legislatures have used temporary “lookback windows” to address this, as California did, creating finite periods where previously barred claims can be brought, but such windows are politically contentious and often face legal challenges that hinge on constitutional protections and expectations of repose ^[2].

5. Political trade-offs and legislative context behind reform bills

Bills extending limitation periods rarely occur in a vacuum; Missouri’s extension came alongside a separate proposal to shorten personal injury limitations, provoking criticism that one change would expand survivors’ access while another would restrict other plaintiffs, revealing legislative bargaining and competing policy agendas ^[7]. Michigan’s bill, passed by the Senate in May 2025, included age cutoffs and elimination of other time bars, showing legislators balancing broadened access for sexual assault survivors with perceived fairness and administrative limits ^[3]. These trade-offs indicate that statute reforms are shaped by broader legal-policy negotiations rather than single-issue altruism.

6. What survivors and defendants should expect in practice

Where legislatures have lengthened or removed civil deadlines, survivors gain more time to file claims and to pursue institutional defendants; however, practical obstacles — evidentiary deterioration and judicial rulings on retroactivity — can still defeat claims, and defendants may raise due-process arguments against retroactive liability ^{[1] [4] [5]}. In Canada and Ontario, absent civil time bars, the primary limits are investigatory and evidentiary, meaning survivors can bring suits but must contend with the realities of proving historic abuse; in U.S. states, the legal landscape is a patchwork of extensions, lookback windows, and continuing litigation over retroactive application.

7. Bottom line: statute changes are real but uneven and contested

The factual record shows a clear trend toward extending or eliminating civil statutes of limitations for sexual assault in multiple jurisdictions, but outcomes depend on statutory language, retroactivity provisions, political compromises, and court interpretations; Michigan, Missouri, California, and Canadian provinces illustrate different policy choices and legal constraints ^{[1] [2] [3] [7] [5] [6]}. For anyone assessing legal options, the decisive issues are whether the change was enacted with retroactive effect, whether it applies to civil versus criminal claims, and how courts interpret constitutionality and evidentiary fairness in older cases ^{[4] [2]}.