Separation of Powers and the Immunity of Final Judgments from Legislative Revival

Introduction

Doe 1K v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte addresses a fundamental constitutional question: can the North Carolina General Assembly, through the SAFE Child Act, revive claims that were already finally adjudicated and dismissed with prejudice? The plaintiffs, alleged victims of child sexual abuse in the 1970s and 1980s, filed time-barred suits in 2011 that were dismissed on statute-of-limitations grounds. A decade later, in 2019, the legislature enacted the SAFE Child Act to revive all previously time-barred child-abuse claims. Plaintiffs then initiated new lawsuits relying on the Act’s revival provision. The Diocese moved to dismiss, asserting res judicata—the bar against relitigating matters already decided. The trial court and the Court of Appeals agreed, and the Supreme Court of North Carolina granted discretionary review to resolve the constitutional separation-of-powers issue.

Summary of the Judgment

On January 31, 2025, the North Carolina Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the Court of Appeals. Justice Dietz held that:

The SAFE Child Act’s revival provision cannot override final judgments of the judicial branch.
Under Article IV, Section 1 and Article I, Section 6 of the North Carolina Constitution, judicial power is exclusive and the legislature cannot annul or modify final court decisions.
The doctrine of res judicata bars plaintiffs from refiling claims already dismissed with prejudice.
Only a court, via Rule 60(b) or similar, may set aside its own final judgments—legislative attempts to do so are unconstitutional.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Court’s reasoning relies on a series of North Carolina decisions establishing the inviolability of final judgments and the separation of powers:

Poindexter v. First Nat. Bank, 247 N.C. 606 (1958): Defined res judicata and its role in securing finality of judgments.
Thomas M. McInnis & Assocs. v. Hall, 318 N.C. 421 (1986): Explained that a final judgment on the merits in a prior action prevents a second suit on the same cause of action.
Garner v. Garner, 268 N.C. 664 (1966): Described how final judgments vest rights and stabilize expectations.
Hogan v. Cone Mills Corp., 315 N.C. 127 (1985): Held that relief from a former judgment is an integral judicial power and cannot be usurped by the legislature.
Piedmont Mem’l Hosp. v. Guilford County, 221 N.C. 308 (1942): Established that legislative attempts to annul judicial decisions are void.
Gardner v. Gardner, 300 N.C. 715 (1980): Reaffirmed that legislative retroactive changes cannot upset final venue determinations.
Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U.S. 211 (1995): U.S. Supreme Court case holding Congress cannot require federal courts to reopen final judgments—illustrating separation of powers at the federal level.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s analysis proceeds in three steps:

Res judicata applies. The 2011 dismissals were adjudications on the merits, “with prejudice,” invoking Rule 41(b), and thus satisfy the elements of finality, identity of parties, and identity of cause of action.
Constitutional separation of powers forbids legislative annulment of judgments. Article IV, Section 1 vests judicial power exclusively in the courts and prohibits the General Assembly from depriving them of jurisdiction or power. Article I, Section 6 mandates the separation of legislative, executive, and judicial functions.
Legislature’s revival statute is void to the extent it conflicts with separation of powers. Under North Carolina precedent (Hogan, Piedmont) and federal authority (Plaut), only a court may set aside its own judgments. Any statutory attempt to bypass this is unconstitutional.

Impact

This decision reinforces the finality of court judgments and the separation of powers in North Carolina:

Future revival statutes must respect existing judgments and direct litigants to courts, not legislatures, for relief from final orders.
Plaintiffs cannot avoid res judicata by waiting for a legislative fix and then refiling; they must seek relief in the original forum via Rule 60(b) or similar mechanisms.
Legislative reform of statutes of limitations will not permit wholesale reset of claims already adjudicated—courts will continue to police the boundary between legislative and judicial functions.
The decision signals to state legislators that retroactive statutes cannot be wielded to undo judicial decisions once appeals are exhausted, preserving the doctrine of finality.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Res judicata: A rule preventing relitigation of a claim or issue already decided by a competent court.
Final judgment: A court order from which no appeal or further motion can be taken, vesting rights and bringing closure.
Separation of powers: Constitutional principle dividing government authority among legislative, executive, and judicial branches to prevent usurpation of one branch by another.
SAFE Child Act: 2019 North Carolina law reviving time-barred child-abuse claims by extending or resetting statutes of limitations.
Rule 60(b): A procedural vehicle allowing parties to seek relief from a final judgment for reasons such as fraud, mistake, or newly discovered evidence.

Conclusion

Doe 1K v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte reaffirms a bedrock principle of North Carolina constitutional law: once a court of competent jurisdiction enters a final judgment and all appeals are exhausted, that decision is immune from legislative reversal. By upholding res judicata and enforcing the separation of powers doctrine, the Supreme Court ensures that only the judiciary may grant relief from its own judgments. The decision protects the finality of court orders and delineates the proper roles of the legislative and judicial branches in our system of government.