The New Hampshire Supreme Court issued a decision in *Ball v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Manchester* addressing the constitutionality of applying a 2020 statute of limitations reform retroactively to childhood sexual abuse claims. The case centers on Randy Ball's lawsuit against the Roman Catholic Bishop of Manchester and Camp Bernadette and Camp Fatima, Inc., alleging negligent hiring, retention, and supervision of an employee who sexually abused him during the 1970s.
Ball filed his complaint seeking to hold the defendants liable for their alleged failure to properly vet and supervise camp staff. The abuse occurred when Ball attended camp in the 1970s, but his lawsuit was filed decades later. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the claims were time-barred under New Hampshire's statute of limitations.
The case turned on the interpretation and application of RSA 508:4-g, which the New Hampshire legislature amended in 2020. The amendment removed the statute of limitations defense in personal actions alleging sexual assault and related offenses, effectively allowing previously time-barred claims to proceed. Ball argued that this legislative change should revive his claims against the Catholic defendants.
The Superior Court, presiding Judge Leonard, dismissed Ball's complaint. The trial court determined that applying the 2020 amendment retroactively to revive Ball's time-barred claim would constitute an unconstitutional retrospective application of the law, violating Part I, Article 23 of the New Hampshire Constitution. This constitutional provision protects against retrospective laws that would unfairly prejudice defendants by changing legal standards after the fact.
Ball appealed the dismissal to the New Hampshire Supreme Court, raising two primary arguments. First, he contended that the trial court erred in determining that RSA 508:4-g's 2020 amendment could not be applied retroactively without violating the state constitution's prohibition on retrospective laws. Second, Ball argued that even if constitutional protections against retrospective laws applied, the trial court's analysis was flawed.
The case represents part of a broader national trend of states reforming statute of limitations laws for childhood sexual abuse cases. Many jurisdictions have enacted "revival windows" or eliminated time limits entirely, recognizing that survivors of childhood sexual abuse often do not come forward until well into adulthood due to trauma, shame, or other psychological factors.
New Hampshire's 2020 amendment to RSA 508:4-g was part of this movement, intended to provide legal recourse for survivors whose claims had previously been time-barred. However, the constitutional question of whether such laws can be applied retroactively remains contentious, pitting survivors' rights against defendants' due process protections.
The Catholic Church has faced thousands of sexual abuse lawsuits nationwide, leading to billions of dollars in settlements and multiple diocesan bankruptcies. New Hampshire's Diocese of Manchester has previously settled numerous abuse claims and has been subject to ongoing litigation over historical abuse cases.
Ball was represented by a team from McLane Middleton, Professional Association, including Scott H. Harris and Jesse J. O'Neill, with Harris arguing orally before the court. He was also represented by Stephen A. Weiss from Seeger Weiss LLP, a firm known for handling sexual abuse cases against institutional defendants.
The defendants were represented by attorneys from Shaheen & Gordon, P.A., including James J. Armillay, Jr. and Olivia F. Bensinger, with Bensinger presenting oral arguments. The case was argued before the New Hampshire Supreme Court on June 18, 2025, with Justice Donovan writing the opinion issued on Oct. 15, 2025.
The court's decision addresses fundamental questions about the balance between providing justice for abuse survivors and protecting constitutional principles regarding retroactive lawmaking. The ruling will likely influence how other sexual abuse cases are handled in New Hampshire and could provide guidance for other states grappling with similar constitutional questions.
The case citation is *Ball v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Manchester*, 2025 N.H. 45, and falls under Belknap Case No. 2024-0606. The opinion remains subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 and formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports.
This decision comes as legislatures nationwide continue to debate reforms to statute of limitations laws for childhood sexual abuse cases, balancing the rights of survivors against constitutional protections for defendants. The New Hampshire Supreme Court's analysis of the retrospective application issue will likely be closely watched by legal practitioners, abuse survivors, and institutional defendants across the country.