Senate passes sexual assault statute of limitations extension; Hall noncommittal on House action
Michigan Senate | Susan J. Demas
Sexual assault survivors gained support from the Michigan Senate on Tuesday with the passage of bills to allow more time in filing civil lawsuits against their assailants, but it remains unclear if the Republican-controlled House plans to take up the bills.
The upper chamber voted 25-9 to pass the five-bill package sponsored by Democratic Senators Kevin Hertel of Saint Clair Shores, Sam Singh of East Lansing, Mallory McMorrow of Royal Oak, Jeff Irwin of Ann Arbor, and Veronica Klinefelt of Eastpointe.
Together, the bills would give survivors of sexual assault or other criminal sexual conduct a 10-year window after a crime was committed, with a cutoff at the age of 42, or within seven years after discovering an injury or some other connection to the misconduct, or whichever is later.
Survivors can file lawsuits to recover damages sustained from the criminal sexual conduct, which could be brought in court at any time if there was also a criminal conviction involved with the assault.
Sexual abuse survivors again ask Michigan lawmakers for more time to sue perpetrators
Regardless of the limitations listed in the package, the bills would allow a survivor who was victimized before the package's effective date to file a lawsuit for damages within one year after the effective date. In that case, a claimant could not recover more than $1.5 million.
Other bills in the package would remove the existing 10-year statute of limitations, exempt claims to recover damages for criminal sexual conduct from the existing permanent prohibition on bringing a claim against the state, and would amend the state's government immunity law in various ways – including removing the immunity from tort liability for a public university, college or school district whose employee engaged in the misconduct while working there if the institution was negligent in hiring, supervising or training that employee.
The same is true if the institution knew about the abuse and failed to intervene.
In a statement, Hertel said survivors of sexual assault have for too long been denied their day in court and silenced by 'arbitrary deadlines and a system that failed them.' 'No more,' Hertel said regarding the Justice for Survivors package. 'At their core, these bills are about justice, accountability, and finally giving survivors the voice they deserve. With this legislation, we are shattering that silence and making it clear: Michigan will no longer be a place where assault is ignored and abusers get to walk free to continue their cycle of harm.' Michigan over the last several years made national headlines due to high-profile sexual assault or abuse cases, including the abuse perpetrated by the Larry Nassar scandal at Michigan State University and Robert Anderson at the University of Michigan. Attorney General Dana Nessel also spearheaded investigations into the Catholic Church and the Boy Scouts of American in Michigan during her tenure, which exposed abuses across generations.
The making of a monster
McMorrow said in a statement that Michigan's justice system needed to be reformed to a position of protecting survivors and not shielding abusers.
'With the passage of this legislation out of the Senate, we're one step closer to securing the access to justice that survivors deserve,' McMorrow said.
Irwin in a statement touted the legislation's removal of immunity for large institutions to empower survivors 'to speak their truth and pursue justice that they deserve.'
Klinefelt in a statement also noted that power institutions have shielded perpetrators while abuses happened under their watch. The bills would no longer allow those institutions to hide behind legal immunity when survivors come forward.
'We're ending that with this legislation and are restoring trust, delivering justice, and making sure survivors' voices are not easily swept under the rug.'
The bills now move to the House, but it's unclear if they'll get traction in the Republican-controlled chamber.
In a Tuesday news briefing, Michigan House Speaker Matt Hall (R-Richland Township) appeared noncommittal on taking the bills up in the House. He also noted that his Democratic colleagues tried to pass similar legislation last session, but the effort died in a disastrous lame duck session that saw several key Democratic priorities grind to a halt.
'I haven't looked at it, but I think the idea of extending statutes of limitations for decades, or whatever it is, that creates a lot of questions, a lot of legal problems,' Hall said. 'We'll look at it. I haven't seen it, but you didn't see the Democrats move it when they were there, so it must have a lot of problems.'
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
State Department shifts $250 million from refugee aid to 'self-deportations'
By Jonathan Landay WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. State Department has moved $250 million to the Department of Homeland Security for voluntary deportations by migrants without legal status, a spokesperson said, an unprecedented repurposing of funds that have been used to aid refugees uprooted by war and natural disasters. The money has been transferred "to provide a free flight home and an exit bonus to encourage and assist illegal aliens to voluntarily depart the United States," the State Department spokesperson told Reuters. Historically, those funds have been used "to provide protection to vulnerable people" overseas and to resettle refugees in the U.S., said Elizabeth Campbell, a former deputy assistant secretary of state. The re-routing of the money comes as President Donald Trump pushes to reshape U.S. government agencies to serve his 'America First' agenda. The State Department's planned reorganization explicitly states that the agency's refugee bureau now largely will focus on efforts to 'return illegal aliens to their country of origin or legal status.' The funds came from Migration and Refugee Assistance (MRA) overseen by the Bureau of Population, Refugee and Migration. Its website says its mission is to "reduce illegal immigration," aid people "fleeing persecution, crisis or violence and seek durable solutions for forcibly displaced people." Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau, citing the law authorizing the funding, said in a May 7 Federal Register notice that underwriting the repatriation of people without legal status will bolster the "foreign policy interests" of the U.S. He did not mention the $250 million transfer to DHS. The DHS did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Trump's administration is working to speed up deportations in a crackdown that the Republican president vowed during the 2024 campaign would expel millions of people illegally in the U.S. It has encouraged migrants to leave voluntarily by threatening steep fines and deporting migrants to notorious prisons in Guantanamo Bay and El Salvador. But the volume of deportations since he took office in January appears to be less than those overseen by his predecessor Joe Biden in the February-May period of 2024, about 200,000 people versus 257,000. On May 9, Trump announced Project Homecoming, an initiative overseen by DHS that offers $1,000 stipends and travel assistance to migrants who "self-deport." DHS said in a May 19 news release that 64 people had "opted to self deport" to Honduras and Colombia on a charter flight under the program. Some experts said that while legal, sending the money to DHS for deportation operations was an unprecedented use of MRA funds. The main purpose of the funds historically has been "to provide refugee and displacement assistance, refugee processing and resettlement to the U.S., and respond to urgent and emerging humanitarian crises - not to return those very people to the harm or persecution they fled,' said Meredith Owen Edwards, senior director of Policy and Advocacy at the Refugee Council USA.
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Top Dems claim 51K people will die annually from the 'big beautiful bill' and its Obamacare freeze
Two top Democrats claimed the Republicans' budget reconciliation bill and its proposal to let enhanced Obamacare credits expire will cause the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans. Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden, the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, along with Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., announced findings that an estimated 51,000 Americans could die each year due to Republican-led changes to the federal healthcare system and the broader reconciliation bill. The national debt — which measures what the U.S. owes its creditors — fell to $36,214,400,664,854.53 as of June 3rd, according to the latest numbers published by the Treasury Department. That is down about $1.4 billion from the figure reported the previous day. Wyden called the "stakes" of the 'big, beautiful bill' debate "truly life and death," as a statement from his office read that "a new analysis estimates that more than 51,000 people will die per year as a direct result of the Republican reconciliation bill, and their refusal to extend Affordable Care Act premium tax credits." "Taking away health insurance and benefits like home care and mental healthcare from seniors, people with disabilities, kids, and working families will be deadly," Wyden said. "This analysis shows the dire consequences of moving ahead with this morally bankrupt effort," he said, referring to a study he and Sanders asked the University of Pennsylvania and Yale to conduct. Read On The Fox News App Liberals Blame Big Beautiful Bill's Loss On Dying Dems The Democrats employed the Philadelphia college's Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, as well as the Yale School of Public Health's Center for Infectious Disease Modeling and Analysis. "Let's be clear," Sanders said in a statement, "The Republican reconciliation bill which makes massive cuts to Medicaid in order to pay for huge tax breaks for billionaires is not just bad public policy." "It is not just immoral. It is a death sentence for struggling Americans." "[N]ot only will some of the most vulnerable people throughout our country suffer, but tens of thousands will die. We cannot allow that to happen," Sanders added. Winners, Losers And Grab-bags From House Gop's Narrow Passage Of 'Big, Beautiful Bill' In a copy of the study posted on UPenn's website, economics and health-centric academics found 7.7 million people would be estimated to lose Medicaid or Obamacare coverage by 2034, and 1.38 million "dual-eligible beneficiaries" would find themselves "disenroll[ed]." In a statement, Wyden cited figures of 11,300 deaths from the loss of Medicaid or Obamacare coverage, 18,200 deaths from the loss of Medicaid coverage among low-income beneficiaries and 13,000 deaths of Medicaid enrollees in nursing homes due to the rollback of a "nursing home minimum staffing rule" from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Wyden attributed an additional projected 8,811 deaths per year to the "failure to extend the enhanced [Obamacare] premium tax credits," citing the academics' analysis. Fox News Digital reached out to House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., -- who spearheaded the "big, beautiful bill" in the House -- for comment. A representative for UPenn told Fox News Digital the university sent the results of their analysis to Wyden and Sanders in response to a request on the matter. "The estimates of mortality that are contained in the letter were based on peer-review research that was done independently and well before their request," the UPenn representative said. "The senators' request was to take the research results and translate into the estimated number of deaths."Original article source: Top Dems claim 51K people will die annually from the 'big beautiful bill' and its Obamacare freeze
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Republicans aren't following Elon Musk's lead anymore
Months ago, Elon Musk helped tank a government funding bill. Now, Republicans are mostly shrugging off his criticism of their "Big Beautiful Bill." "I don't think it's gonna move the needle in any direction," one House Republican told BI. Elon Musk says President Donald Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill" is a "disgusting abomination." Republicans on Capitol Hill are making clear that they don't really care. "I think he's flat wrong," House Speaker Mike Johnson told reporters on Wednesday. "I think he's way off on this." "We have a difference of opinion," Senate Majority Leader John Thune told reporters on Tuesday. "He's entitled to that opinion, we're going to proceed full speed ahead." It's a far cry from December, when Musk, then the incoming de facto leader of the White House DOGE Office, helped generate an online pressure campaign that swiftly tanked a government funding bill. That episode was a dramatic sign of the tech titan's burgeoning influence in Washington, suggesting that GOP lawmakers would be taking his cues — perhaps as much as they took Trump's — in the months to come. Now no longer leading DOGE, Musk has returned to being another outside voice. Fiscal hawks who agree with him don't mind getting a little backup. Other Republicans are happy to brush him off. "Elon, of course, is the wealthiest man in the world, but that doesn't necessarily mean he's wrong or he's right. He has an opinion, just like the rest of us," Republican Rep. Tim Burchett of Tennessee told BI. "I don't think it's gonna move the needle in any direction." Musk did not respond to a request for comment. Trump has continued to pressure Republicans to support the bill, and the White House has said that those who vote against it should face primary challenges. Trump himself has not yet responded to Musk, though Johnson told reporters that the president is "not delighted that Elon did a 180" on the bill. Musk's broadside against the bill, according to him, is about its impact on the debt. Multiple forecasters who have analyzed the bill, including the Congressional Budget Office and the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, have estimated that the current version of the bill would add more than $2 trillion to the deficit over the next 10 years. Musk has argued that this undermines DOGE, which has been trying to significantly reduce federal spending. Republicans were already arguing about this amongst themselves. Fiscal conservatives like Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky and Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin say that the version of the bill that passed the House last month adds too much to the debt, and they're now seeking to amend it. Most Republicans, however, have argued that outside projections about the bill's impact on the debt are flawed and don't account for potential economic growth as a result of the bill's eventual passage. Even those who agree with Musk don't seem to believe that his comments will strengthen their hand that much. "Sure, it helps bolster the case," Sen. Ron Johnson told reporters of Musk's tweet. "But again, the President wants to balance the budget as well." Perhaps the biggest reason why Musk's comments are unlikely to tank the bill: It's the centerpiece of Trump's legislative agenda, and it's simply too important to them. The bill includes a permanent extension of tax cuts that Trump and Republicans first enacted in 2017, contains new funding for border security and immigration enforcement, and is chock full of other GOP priorities that they're not going to give up simply because of Musk's concern about the deficit. "All the things that are in this bill are so important for the US economy, it's going to be jet fuel for the US economy," Speaker Johnson told reporters on Wednesday. "The risk of not getting it done is enormous, not just for the Republican Party, but for the country. We've got to do this." The government funding bill that Musk helped tank in December, on the other hand, was a bipartisan piece of legislation that included all kinds of provisions that Republicans don't agree with. Plenty of fiscal conservatives planned to vote against it anyway, and Musk's involvement strengthened their case, eventually making it untenable for Speaker Johnson to move forward with it. Republican Rep. Andy Harris of Maryland, the chairman of the hardline House Freedom Caucus, voted "present" when the "Big Beautiful Bill" passed the House last month. He told reporters on Wednesday that he hopes senators keep Musk's criticism "in mind" as they make changes to the bill, but he didn't predict that it would change much. "He doesn't have to change the dynamic," Harris told BI. "I'm glad that he reminded people that the federal deficit is of grave concern." Read the original article on Business Insider
