Last week, two state Supreme Courts permitted actions against the Catholic Church to proceed over First Amendment objections by the church. Both cases involved suits against the church by victims of the clergy sex-abuse scandal.
Fortin v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Portland (decided May 3, 2005) involved a claim that the Diocese failed to alert police that one of its priests had a propensity to abuse young boys. The Maine Supreme Court held that the plaintiff’s special relationship with the church created a fiduciary duty on the part of the Church to protect him from harm. It went on to reject the Church’s argument that imposing a fiduciary duty of care would violate its Free Exercise rights. The Court held that the imposition of liability was consistent with the US Supreme Court’s decision in Employment Division v. Smith, because the liability rule is a facially neutral requirement of general applicability that does not target religious beliefs or practices. It also held that the Church failed to identify a specific religious doctrine or practice that would be infringed by imposing this standard on the Church.
Finally the Court rejected the Church’s claim that the free exercise clause of Art. I, Sec. 3 of the Maine Constitution was violated by imposing potential liability on the Diocese. The Court held, however, that in later proceedings the Diocese could still prove that deciding the plaintiff’s claim will unconstitutionally involve the Court in deciding issues of religious law governing an hierarchical church.
Roman Catholic Diocese of Jackson Mississippi v. Morrison (decided May 5, 2005) also involved claims that the Diocese acted improperly when it learned that one of its priests had a propensity to molest children. First the Mississippi Supreme Court rejected the Establishment Clause argument that imposing liability on the Church for negligence in hiring and retaining a priest involves excessive entanglement of government with religion. It focused on the fact that there is nothing religious in nature about the conduct at issue.
The Court also rejected the Church’s Free Exercise argument that “subjecting it to prosecution of civil claims for negligent supervision would be tantamount to attempting to regulate its ecclesiastical policies, principles and procedures.” Finally the Court rejected arguments that Constitutional doctrines of church autonomy prevented it from deciding the case, since no ecclesiastical matters were at issue here. The Court has written a lengthy opinion extensively examining relevant precedent.
In the second part of its opinion, the Court rejects the argument that it should create a First Amendment privilege that would allow the Church to refuse to produce religious-oriented documents during discovery.
Two justices dissented from the court’s opinion.
