When courts block a new law from applying to past events, they often cite the concept of a “vested right.” But what exactly does that mean, and how does it relate to the constitutional ban on retrospective laws?
A recent decision by the New Hampshire Supreme Court in Ball v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Manchester, 2025 N.H. 45 (Oct. 15, 2025), provides a concrete example. The court held that a man who alleged he was sexually abused in the 1970s could not revive his lawsuit under a 2020 law that eliminated time limits for sexual assault claims. The reason: the defendants had a vested right in their statute of limitations defense once the original deadline to sue expired.
Under Part I, Article 23 of the New Hampshire Constitution, “[r]etrospective laws are highly injurious, oppressive, and unjust. No such laws, therefore, should be made, either for the decision of civil causes, or the punishment of offenses.” In practical terms, that means a law generally cannot apply to undo or change the legal consequences of past actions if it harms someone’s existing legal position.
A vested right is one that is so established under existing law that it cannot be taken away by later legislation. Courts have long recognized that when the time to file a lawsuit expires under a statute of limitations, the defendant gains a vested right not to face that claim in court. As early as Woart v. Winnick, 3 N.H. 473 (1826), New Hampshire’s judiciary has treated the expiration of such deadlines as creating a constitutionally protected defense.
In Ball, the plaintiff’s claim expired in 1986. He brought suit in 2023 after the New Hampshire legislature amended RSA 508:4-g in 2020 to say that anyone alleging sexual assault could sue “at any time.” But because the original time limit had already passed, the court ruled that allowing the case to proceed would unconstitutionally impair the defendant’s vested right.
The plaintiff asked the court to overturn its precedent and adopt a newer view, similar to the Maryland Supreme Court’s decision in Roman Catholic Archbishop of Washington v. Doe, 330 A.3d 1069 (Md. 2025). That court held that removing time limits on sexual abuse claims did not violate that state’s constitution. But New Hampshire’s court declined to follow Maryland, citing its long-standing rule that once a statute of limitations expires, the defense becomes a vested right and cannot be retroactively removed.
The justices applied the doctrine of stare decisis, which means sticking to precedent unless there is a strong reason to depart. They looked at whether the rule had become unworkable, whether people had relied on it, whether legal thinking had changed, and whether facts had changed. On each count, the court concluded the old rule still holds.
So why not make an exception for sexual abuse cases, where victims often delay disclosure? The court acknowledged the concern but pointed to the broader legal principle: that fairness includes protecting people from having settled legal defenses pulled out from under them after the fact.
Analysis
The idea behind the plaintiff’s argument was simple: if the legislature has removed the deadline for suing over sexual assault, then victims should be able to come forward now, even decades later. But New Hampshire’s constitution makes that a much harder case to win.
What blocked the claim wasn’t just an old statute—it was the constitutional principle that when the law gives you a defense, like a statute of limitations, and the deadline passes, you now own that defense. It’s part of your legal status. That’s what courts mean by a “vested right.” You didn’t have to ask for it. The law gave it to you the moment the clock ran out.
Why protect something like that? Because the legal system isn’t just about who wins. It’s about making sure everyone knows where they stand and what they can expect. If the legislature could reach back and erase your defenses, then the law would stop being a set of rules and start becoming a moving target. That’s what Article 23 is designed to prevent.
Could New Hampshire rewrite its constitution to change this rule? Yes. But until that happens, courts are bound by what’s already in place. And in this case, the state’s highest court followed that rule—whether or not the outcome feels fair in the broader sense.
New Hampshire remains one of several states with strong constitutional protections against retrospective civil laws. While other jurisdictions may allow revived claims under new laws, New Hampshire’s approach is shaped by the belief that the rules governing yesterday’s actions must be fixed, not rewritten.
Tags: vested rights, retrospective laws, New Hampshire Constitution, statute of limitations, sexual assault law
Case Link: https://www.courts.nh.gov/sites/g/files/ehbemt471/files/documents/2025-10/2025045ball.pdf
AI Disclaimer:
This article was written with the assistance of artificial intelligence. Like always, contact a licensed attorney if you have a legal issue and do not rely on this blog entry.