Ohio lawmakers this spring rolled out a bipartisan plan that could significantly expand the legal runway for many adult survivors of sexual assault, stretching the window to sue for damages from one year to five. The proposal, Senate Bill 421, is sponsored by Sens. Nickie J. Antonio (D-Lakewood) and Nathan H. Manning (R-North Ridgeville) and received a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee in mid-April.
What the bill would change
SB 421 would amend Ohio Revised Code section 2305.111 to provide a five-year statute of limitations for civil claims tied to conduct listed in Chapter 2907, the section of law that includes rape, sexual battery and related offenses. The text also updates the version of that statute that is scheduled to take effect on Oct. 12, 2028, so the longer civil deadline would continue after that date. The bill language filed with the committee lays out how the accrual rules and “discovery of identity” provisions would work, according to the Bill text.
Supporters' case
Sponsors say the change is about basic breathing room for survivors deciding whether to take someone to court. Antonio and Manning argue that trauma, reporting, and civil decision-making rarely fit neatly into a one-year box.
In sponsor testimony, Antonio told colleagues that “one year is simply not adequate time” for many victims to process an assault and decide whether to pursue civil remedies, and said that extending the window would give survivors “another avenue towards justice and redemption,” according to her filed Sponsor testimony. Manning has likewise described the move as overdue work on Ohio’s limitations on timelines for sex offense-related civil cases in comments to reporters, as reported by Cleveland.com.
Criminal and civil clocks don't match
The bill deals only with civil lawsuits, not the state’s criminal deadlines, and advocates say that split is exactly the problem. Under current Ohio law, prosecutions for rape and sexual battery generally must be brought within about 25 years, and prosecutors can sometimes file even after that window when DNA evidence later identifies a suspect, a framework explained in an analysis by the Ohio Legislative Service Commission. Supporters point out that the criminal side gives the state far more time than survivors currently get to seek civil accountability.
Why advocates say it matters
Survivor advocates who testified on the bill told lawmakers that a one-year civil clock routinely shuts people out of court, because reporting, healing, and evidence processing often take much longer. Committee testimony and advocacy materials cited statewide incident-based reporting data and long-recognized underreporting of sexual violence; sponsors pointed to Ohio incident figures in their committee filings, and the Ohio Alliance to End Sexual Violence has noted that many assaults are never reported to law enforcement at all. Those materials were included in the record for the April hearing.
Opposition and practical concerns
Not everyone is on board. Defense attorneys and some institutional defendants argue that stretching civil deadlines can make fair trials harder to guarantee, since witnesses move or die, memories fade, and records disappear. Critics also warn that a longer window could trigger more lawsuits against hospitals, schools, and employers, and raise thorny questions about how long they must hang on to documents and track down former staff. Those concerns surfaced repeatedly in local reporting and in committee testimony during the April hearings, according to the Ohio Capital Journal.
What happens next
SB 421 has had its first hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee on April 15 and currently remains in that panel. To become law, the measure would have to clear the committee, win approval from the full Senate, pass the House and then land on Gov. Mike DeWine’s desk for his signature. Antonio and Manning say they plan to keep pushing the bill through additional hearings and outreach to stakeholders as the legislative session goes on. The Ohio Senate Judiciary Committee meeting schedules and materials list the bill and the testimony filed to date.
Legal implications
Even if it passes, SB 421’s changes would be purely civil and would not automatically reopen criminal prosecutions that are already time-barred. Courts are particularly wary of retroactive changes to criminal deadlines, and the U.S. Supreme Court has held that trying to revive already-expired criminal limitations periods can raise ex post facto problems. That is why lawmakers and attorneys draw a clear line between civil reforms like SB 421 and any attempt to resurrect criminal charges, a distinction discussed in the Court’s decision in Stogner v. California (2003).
