WV Supreme Court Construes Fraud Exception to Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine

In State of West Virginia  ex rel. Trustees of the West Virginia Conference of the United Methodist Church v. Wills, (WV Sup. Ct. App., Nov. 4, 2026), the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals held that the fraud exception to the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine was not applicable to statements that merely misinterpreted Church law. In 2019, amidst objections from numerous local churches to the increasing acceptance of same sex marriage and ordination of homosexual clergy, the United Methodist Church set up a procedure by which local congregations could disaffiliate and retain their church property. However, congregations had only until December 31, 2023, to disaffiliate under this provision. In West Virginia, local churches postponed disaffiliating until after that date in reliance on incorrect information given to them by representatives of the parent General Conference. The Supreme Court said in part:

The Local Churches’ claims arise from the Church’s rules governing disaffiliation and the disposition of church property. Adjudicating those claims would require the circuit court to determine what the Discipline permitted, what procedures it made available to congregations seeking to disaffiliate, and whether the Conference properly interpreted and applied the Church’s governing law. Those are questions of ecclesiastical law committed exclusively to the Church’s own governing structure....

... The Local Churches alleged that in 2022, Conference representatives advised them that ¶ 2553 did not permit disaffiliation because the General Conference had not made any changes necessary to trigger the provision.... [T]hey contend that it constitutes a false statement that induced them to delay disaffiliation. However, whether that interpretation was correct or not is a question of Church law beyond the review of the civil courts. 

Characterizing a difference of opinion over the meaning of the Discipline’s provisions as a false statement does not confer jurisdiction upon a secular court to decide the underlying ecclesiastical question.

The same is true of the Local Churches’ allegations concerning ¶ 2549. They allege that Conference representatives promised that they could use that provision’s closure procedure to disaffiliate after the 2024 General Conference despite knowing when they made the representation that it was false... [In 2024, the] Judicial Council ... [held] that ¶ 2549 did not provide a means of disaffiliation. The Local Churches do not allege that this decision was procured by fraud, nor do they allege that Conference representatives colluded with the Judicial Council.... To adjudicate their claims ... the circuit court would necessarily have to determine whether the Conference’s interpretation of the Discipline was correct. That question implicates the Church’s interpretation and application of its own ecclesiastical law and therefore cannot be independently determined by the Circuit Court of Mercer County.

The Local Churches contend that their allegations of fraud and collusion act as an exception to the constitutional constraint on civil courts’ authority to adjudicate ecclesiastical matters and require the court to consider their claims. We decline to apply the exception so broadly. ...

... [T]he exception does not encompass alleged misconduct that did not procure the final decision; accompanied an interpretation of church law by a church authority not empowered to issue binding interpretations; or otherwise contributed to the underlying dispute....

New Law Allows Clergy to Opt Back Into Social Security and Medicare

On Oct. 20, President Trump signed into law H.R. 227, the Clergy Act. The new law (P.L. 119-125) (full text) is summarized by the Congressional Research Service in part as follows:

This act establishes a two-year window for members of the clergy who have opted out of Social Security and Medicare taxes (and are thus ineligible for benefits under those programs) to opt back in.

Under current law, certain ministers, members of religious orders, and Christian Science practitioners who object to participation in public insurance programs on religious or conscientious grounds may apply to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for an exemption from Social Security and Medicare taxes on ministerial earnings. Individuals who are approved for the exemption do not receive Social Security or Medicare benefits in retirement unless they have qualifying credits from other employment. The exemption is irrevocable.

Under the act, clergy members may choose to revoke their exemption by filing an application with the IRS by ...  April 15, 2031.... A revocation under the act is permanent.

Clergy members who opt back in will generally need 10 years of covered employment ... to be eligible for .. benefits ....

Catholic Clergy Sue ICE Detention Center for Restricting Their Ability to Minister to Detainees

 A suit was filed on Monday in a Missouri federal district court alleging that a detention center housing 150 immigration detainees is violating the free exercise rights of detainees and Catholic clergy. The complaint (full text) in Rozanski v. Stolzer, (ED MO, filed 10/5/2026), the Archdiocese of St. Louis alleges in part:

1. Under the First Amendment—and federal and state statutes that protect the rights enshrined in it—the government may not (a) ban the exercise of religion or (b) treat religious practice differently than it treats analogous secular activity.  Yet the Ste. Genevieve County Detention Center manages to commit both sins by imposing a visitation policy that prevents Catholic priests from meaningfully ministering to Catholic federal detainees housed there (while readily allowing exceptions to the policy for non-religious reasons). 

2.   ...The jail’s visitation policy prohibits this basic religious exercise in two ways.  First, it allows only “no contact” visits, which are not private and prevent face-to-face interactions.  This prevents priests from administering the sacraments of confession and communion.  Second, the policy permits clergy visits for only a single, four-hour period once a week.  This severely restricts priests’ ability provide pastoral care, as priests cannot meet with all detainees who wish to see a Catholic priest (and have only limited time with those they do visit).   Priests are also prohibited from saying Mass.... 

3. Worse still, the policy applies to clergy but not to lawyers or consular officials, for whom exceptions to the policy are readily made.  That constitutes more favorable treatment for secular activity than religious exercise....   

4. ... [T]he visitation policy violates the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”), the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, the Missouri Religious Freedom Restoration Act ... and the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”)....

St. Louis Public Radio reports on the lawsuit.

Student Organizations Challenge University's Consolidation of Christian Student Groups Under One Campus Minister

Suit was filed last month in a Virginia federal district court by two Christian student groups at Virginia State University challenging the school's new Campus Ministries Policy.  The complaint (full text) in Women of Victory at Virginia State University v. Branch, (ED VA, filed 9/24/2026), alleges in part:

3. ... VSU recently instituted a Campus Ministries Policy ... that strips religious organizations of their registered student organization (“RSO”) status and accompanying benefits, brings student-led ministries under the “governance and influence” of a University-appointed Campus Minister, and yet exempts secular student groups as well as the Muslim and non-Christian student ministries on campus from the Policy’s onerous requirements. 

4. The burden of this Policy falls on the Plaintiff chapters of Women of Victory and Bethel Campus Fellowship. These are VSU chapters of national organizations that provide religious support to students on college campuses through Bible studies, leadership trainings and events, and numerous other opportunities for spiritual growth, both on- and off-campus....

8. ... [O]n August 6, 2026, VSU’s Campus Ministries office circulated its new Campus Ministries Policy, informing student leaders that “student-led ministries” could no longer affiliate with their national organizations or hold RSO status. Instead, faith-based groups (unlike secular groups) would be absorbed into VSU’s Campus Ministries, subject to the sole authority of VSU’s Campus Minister and a newly appointed Board of Advisors, made up of various faculty members, including a Public Safety officer, a Facility Quality Assurance Director, and the VSU President’s Deputy Chief of Staff, among others. 

9. Under the new Policy, Christian organizations lose access to RSO benefits, including funding, event-planning resources, and event-promotion rights. Further, the VSU Campus Minister is granted control of all Christian, student-led ministries, with complete discretion to approve or reject requests for religious meetings, events, guest speakers, and all other religious activities on campus....

148. Forcing Christian student organizations to submit to a single religious figure employed by a public university violates religious students’ constitutional rights.....

The complaint alleges that the new policy violates plaintiffs' rights under the Free Exercise Clause, Establishment Clause, and Equal Protection Clause and violates their rights of expressive association and freedom of assembly.  Christian Post reports on the lawsuit.

Britain's New Law Requiring Reporting of Child Sex Abuse Will Apply to Clergy

The United Kingdom's Crime and Policing Act 2026 received Royal Assent on April 29, 2026. Section 85 of the Act requires persons engaged in various activities to notify police "if, in the course of engaging in a relevant activity in England, they are given reason to suspect that a child sex offence may have been committed (at any time)." The law in Sec. 85(12) provides and elaborate definition of "relevant activity." The effective date of Section 85 must still be established by further regulations promulgated by the Secretary of State. Meanwhile, a member of Parliament submitted a written question to the Secretary of State for the Home Department. MP Ben Obese-Jecty asked whether the mandatory reporting requirements will apply to information heard during religious confession. 

On September 7, the Home Office responded:

This Government remains firmly committed to tackling all forms of child sexual abuse. The new mandatory reporting duty we are working to implement will be a vital step in safeguarding children more effectively across a range of institutions and settings.

The Crime and Policing Act 2026 does not provide any exemption from mandatory reporting on the basis of religious practice, or the setting in which information is received. In defining who is subject to the duty, the Act makes specific provision for those providing religious instruction to children beyond the regulated activity framework in Schedule 12. The Act also makes clear how the duty interacts with any wider expectations of confidentiality that a reporter may be subject to. Section 85 makes clear that submitting a report under the mandatory reporting duty does not breach any obligation of confidence owed by the person making the report. This ensures that individuals who are subject to the duty can make reports as required by law.

We will continue to engage across government and with stakeholders to help manage the implementation of the new duty to ensure readiness and compliance for when the duty comes into effect in 2027.

[Thanks to Law & Religion UK for the lead.]

Clergyman Loses Attempt to Access Prison to Conduct Religious Services

In Brooks v. Smith, (ED TN, July 30, 2026), a Tennessee federal district court refused to set aside its previous dismissal of a suit brought by a clergyman who contends that he was being prevented from participating in religious services for prisoners. He wants to participate in Holy Communion and in anointment for healing and deliverance with inmates. The court said in part:

Here, Plaintiff is not alleging that Defendants have prohibited him from practicing Holy Communion or anointment altogether. Rather, he challenges restrictions on conducting Holy Communion and anointment within a correctional facility.... That distinction matters.... [T]he Free Exercise Clause does not guarantee unfettered access to practice one’s religion in any manner or location one chooses. Indeed, courts have recognized that outside clergy and chaplains do not possess a constitutional right to enter correctional institutions to administer religious services or sacraments. ...

Plaintiffs pointed to Coalition for Spiritual v. Noem, a 2026 federal district court case that held ICE agents violated RFRA when they denied a religious group entry into an ICE facility to minister to detainees. Distinguishing that case, the court said in part:

... RFRA ... has no application to Plaintiff’s claims because it does not apply to state or local governments.... Furthermore, while an individual may have a valid cause of action against the federal government under RFRA, it does not necessarily follow that the same conduct by a state government is cognizable under the Free Exercise Clause. This is because RFRA provides broader protections for religious exercise and imposes a far more demanding standard on government action than the Free Exercise Clause itself....

The court also rejected plaintiff's Establishment Clause argument. 

Clergy Duties Do Not Excuse Compliance With Forum Selection Clause In Employment Agreement

In Luzingu v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., (D ME, July 31, 2026), a Maine federal district court rejected a claim by a Christian pastor that in a civil rights action under Title VII and state statutes against his former employer, Abbott Laboratories, he should be able to ignore a forum selection clause in his employment agreement that requires any litigation against his employer be brought in state or federal court in northern Illinois. Plaintiff worked in an Abbott Lab facility in the state of Maine beginning in 2016 when he came to the United States from Angola because of persecution in his home country. His Abbott employment was terminated in 2022. He now is employed as a Christian pastor and is pursuing a master's degree online. He filed suit against Abbott in a Maine federal district court. According to the court:

Plaintiff argues that transfer [of the case to Illinois] would be unfair, unjust, and against public policies that favor the free exercise of religion and nondiscrimination.... Plaintiff is “the sole pastor at his church” and “leads three services per week.” ...  Because of his religious calling and his duties, he maintains, “[t]raveling to Illinois for a deposition or trial would make it far more difficult for him to fulfill his pastoral duties than if the deposition or trial occurred in Maine.”...  

I am not persuaded that Plaintiff’s religious practices and duties as a pastor justify giving him a special dispensation to avoid application of the Forum-Selection Clause....  And as for the burden itself, assuming that a special dispensation might be appropriate based on individual needs pertaining to the inconvenience of a particular forum, the Defendant has indicated that Plaintiff’s deposition will take place in Maine.  Moreover, Defendant fairly observes that a trial in Illinois should take only a few days and that telecommunications technology enables Plaintiff to remain connected to his parishioners when court is not in session.  I agree with Defendant that the limited time required to conduct a trial of this case in Illinois will not unduly disrupt Plaintiff’s religious observance, even if religious observance is a proper basis to nullify the consequences of a forum-selection clause. 

... [I]t is unreasonable to suspect that Defendant is enforcing the Forum-Selection Clause against Plaintiff in a selective manner based on the burden that litigation in Illinois would impose on his pastoral duties.  Defendant has similarly moved to enforce its forum-selection clause in cases brought by plaintiffs who do not point to their religious practice as cause to avoid the consequences of the Forum-Selection Clause....

Arizona Supreme Court Interprets Clergy Exemption from Mandatory Reporting of Child Abuse

 In Jane Doe I v. Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints, (AZ Sup. Ct., July 29, 2026), the Arizona Supreme Court settled important interpretive questions regarding Arizona's requirement to report child abuse to authorities and the ability of a court to inquire into a clergy member's failure to do so. At issue was the scope of the clergy exemption from Arizona's reporting law when a congregation member admits the abuse to the clergy member. The issue arose in a suit by abuse victims against the Church and clergy members. The Court summarized its holding:

We must decide if a factfinder—a court or jury—may inquire into whether a clergy member violated religious doctrine by failing to report abuse of a minor.  Subsection (A) of A.R.S. § 13-3620 (the “Reporting Statute”) requires “[a]ny person who reasonably believes that a minor” is the victim of abuse to “immediately report or cause reports to be made.”  The Reporting Statute, however, allows a clergy member who receives “a confession or confidential communication” to refrain from reporting the “confession” or “confidential communication” if the clergy member “determines that it is reasonable and necessary within the concepts” of the clergy member’s religion....  We hold that the First Amendment generally prohibits factfinders from inquiring into a clergy member’s application of his particular religious doctrine—absent fraud or collusion for secular purposes—in determining whether reporting should be withheld if “reasonable and necessary.” 

We next determine the meaning of the terms “confession” and “confidential communication” in the Reporting Statute.  We hold that “confession” means “a confidential acknowledgment or admission of a crime, sin, or fault to a member of the clergy, priest, or Christian Science practitioner for the purpose of absolution.”  A “confidential communication” refers to “speech or correspondence that is treated as private or made in confidence, generally under circumstances that indicate the communication is intended only for the person or persons addressed.”  The First Amendment, however, requires courts to exercise substantial deference to a religious institution’s own doctrinal conception of “confession” or “confidential communication.” 

Finally, we resolve whether a factfinder may determine who qualifies as a “member of the clergy.”  We hold that the First Amendment protects the right of a religious institution to define who is a “member of the clergy” and, absent fraud or collusion for secular purposes, prohibits factfinders from inquiring into the religious institution’s designation of clergy.

12 News reports on the decision.

Pastor's Suit for Breach of Contract and Defamation Is Dismissed Under Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine

 In Lovelace v. Mt. Zion Baptist Church, (MI App., July 15, 2026), a Michigan state appellate court, invoking the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine, affirmed a trial court's dismissal of contract and defamation claims by a pastor whose employment contract was cancelled by a vote of church members. The court said in part:

We first address plaintiff’s ... theory ... that the church breached the agreement by terminating him for actions he was contractually permitted to take.  This theory would require a civil court to decide whether church leadership correctly concluded that plaintiff had “abused his authority”....  That inquiry would require the court to decide questions of church governance and authority.  “Under the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine, apparently derived from both First Amendment religion clauses, civil courts may not redetermine the correctness of ... some decision relating to government of the religious polity.”...

Here, plaintiff asks us to determine that the church and its leadership exceeded their authority when they called the April 2022 meetings to discuss his future as senior pastor and invited guest pastors to oversee those meeting....

Under the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine, a civil court may not decide those questions because it would generally be inconsistent with religious liberty for civil courts to “inquire into the regularity of the proceedings of church tribunals having cognizance of such matters.... 

... [E]ven the seemingly straightforward question whether the termination process in plaintiff’s employment agreement was followed cannot be answered here through neutral legal principles without infringing on the religious liberty of the church and its members....

... [P]laintiff’s tortious-interference claim fails because he cannot establish that the individual defendants were third parties to the employment agreement.  And even if plaintiff could satisfy that threshold requirement, adjudicating the breach and justification elements of his claim would require the resolution of ecclesiastical questions...

Plaintiff’s defamation theory is that the individual defendants stated that he lacked authority to access the church’s bank accounts, and that this statement was false because his employment agreement gave him broad authority over the church’s spiritual and secular affairs....

For the statement to be actionable, however, a civil court would have to determine that it was false.... The statement ... would be provable as false only if the trial court parsed the agreement and determined which powers belonged to the senior pastor.

Supreme Court Denies Review in Case of Attorney Held in Contempt for Disclosing Information About Abusive Priest

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court denied review in Trahant v. Roman Catholic Church, (Docket No. 25-1260, certiorari denied, 6/29/2026). (Order List.). In the case, the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in a January 2026 opinion (full text of opinion) upheld a finding of contempt and a $400,000 sanction imposed on an attorney representing victims of clergy sexual abuse. The 5th Circuit explained in part:

Richard Trahant received confidential information regarding sexual abuse allegations against a New Orleans priest while serving as state court counsel for several alleged victims of sexual abuse who were also members of the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors.  Despite a protective order prohibiting the disclosure of confidential information revealed during discovery, Trahant contacted the principal of a local high school to confirm that the priest remained the high school’s chaplain.  Trahant then sent an email to a journalist listing the priest’s name in the subject line, identifying where the priest was employed, and advising the journalist to “[k]eep this guy on your radar.”  The bankruptcy court held Trahant in contempt for violating the protective order and sanctioned him for his conduct.  The district court affirmed....

Notwithstanding the fact that the record fully supported the bankruptcy court’s finding that Trahant violated the protective order, Trahant maintains that he “acted in the utmost good faith at all times” and that the sanctions are “disproportionate” to the alleged conduct.  To support this argument, Trahant points to his “legal, moral, and ethical obligation . . . to keep [the priest] away from children.”  He also points to his belief that the $400,000 sanction is “not causally related to any actual damage or prejudice to any party.”  These arguments are without merit.

The Guardian has additional information on the case.

Michigan AG Releases Report on Sexual Abuse in Saginaw Catholic Diocese

On June 25, Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel released a 258-page report titled Diocese of Saginaw: A Complete Accounting (full text). It is the sixth of what will be seven reports on allegations of sexual abuse or assault and other sexual misconduct by priests or deacons in each of Michigan's seven dioceses. Last week's report contains information on complaints against 37 Catholic priests and one deacon in the Saginaw diocese. The Attorney General says:

To date, eleven cases have been brought by the Department of Attorney General for all seven dioceses.  Nine have resolved with convictions.  Of these eleven cases, none of them related to priests ministering in the Diocese of Saginaw.

Bishop Robert Guss responded to the Report through a posting on the Diocese's website that says in part:

• For the 37 priests and one deacon, 30 are known or presumed to be dead. For the 8 who are living or presumed to be living, none are in active ministry.
• For the 37 priests and one deacon, other than a few entries, the conduct as alleged that may have violated Michigan criminal law all occurred before 2002, the year of the U.S. Bishops’ Charter.
• The vast majority of reported abuse cases in our diocese are very old, with most occurring in the 1970s and 1980s.

He also held a news conference and issued a letter responding to the Report and saying in part:

I want to express my deepest sorrows to those who have been victims of abuse by members of the clergy. Please accept my sincere apology for the pain and suffering you have experienced by those who were entrusted with your care. I'm deep]y saddened by it all. And, again, I apologize to you on behalf of the Church and our Diocese.

The Abuse Survivors Coalition issued a statement saying in part:

The Bishop’s words ignored the systemic problem and minimized what occurred during the time period covered in the report. For example, Bishop Gruss apologized for the trust that has been broken by the “misconduct of a few.” But childhood sexual abuse by clergy is not “misconduct.” It is serious criminal behavior resulting in life-long damage to the victims. Moreover, the Bishop completely ignored the issue of highly placed Catholic officials who allowed identified abusers to remain in ministry and harm additional young lives.

State Attorney General May Enforce Subpoena Seeking from Archdiocese Evidence of Clergy Sexual Abuse

In State of Washington v. Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle, (WA App, March 2, 2026), a Washington state appellate court allowed enforcement of a subpoena issued by the state Attorney General's Office (AGO) seeking from the Catholic Archdiocese evidence relating to clergy sexual abuse. In issuing the subpoena the Attorney General's Office relied on investigative authority given to it by a provision of the state's Charitable Trust Act. The trial court had quashed the subpoena because the Charitable Trust Act exempts "religious corporations ... operated in good faith as religious organizations" from its provisions. The appeals court, however, held that giving that exemption to religious organizations violates the state constitution's provision barring the granting to any person or corporation privileges or immunities not equally belonging to all citizens or corporations. The court went on to say in part:

Antifavoritism analysis under article I, section 12 subjects legislation to a two-part test.....  First, the court asks whether a challenged law grants a “privilege” or “immunity” for purposes of our state constitution....  If the answer is yes, then the court asks whether there is a “reasonable ground” for granting that privilege or immunity....

The Archdiocese says this case does not involve a ... direct impact on the fundamental right to be free from unwanted bodily interference, because exempting it from the AGO’s statutory subpoena power does not directly condone the invasion of any person’s bodily autonomy,,,,

As the Archdiocese correctly observes, a civil authority in the United States cannot sit in judgment of whether the Archdiocese has conformed to its faith and doctrine.  To the extent, by its subpoena or otherwise, the AGO were to purport to second-guess whether a given action by the Archdiocese was truly “for the use, purpose, benefit and behoof” of the church, the AGO and its use of the subpoena would violate the federal and state constitutional religious protections. ...

At the same time, the subpoena to this point does not implicate a civil authority second-guessing the Archdiocese’s decision-making or good faith, but requires only the production of documents..... The Archdiocese has not pointed to any authority that constitutional religious protections are offended by inquiry into whether criminal or tortious conduct has occurred, including sexual abuse by clergy.  

We perceive in the AGO’s subpoena a scope that, if pursued, would clearly unconstitutionally infringe the Archdiocese’s religious protections, to the extent the AGO seeks to determine whether any given act or expenditure by the Archdiocese was “for the use, purpose, benefit and behoof” of the church.  But we also perceive a scope that clearly does not infringe the Archdiocese’s religious protections, to the extent the AGO seeks evidence relevant to determining that an act occurred that is criminal, tortious, or both, including sexual abuse by clergy.

Clergy Seek Access To ICE Detainees

Suit was filed this week in a Minnesota federal district court by Evangelical Lutheran and United Church of Christ organizations and by a Catholic priest seeking access to a federal building in Minneapolis that houses individuals held by Immigration and Customs Enforcement personnel. The complaint (full text) in Minneapolis Area Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, (D MN, filed 2/23/2026) alleges in part:

The Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building ... now stands in stark contrast to its namesake’s legacy. The federal government is using the building to hold Minnesotans detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) while barring faith leaders from offering prayer, pastoral guidance, sacramental ministry, and spiritual comfort to detainees in moments of profound fear, isolation, and despair. By prohibiting faith leaders from providing essential pastoral care to individuals in ICE detention, the federal government unconstitutionally obstructs their sacred obligation to exercise their faith through ministry to community members in the greatest need of spiritual comfort....

Defendants’ policies and practices unreasonably burden Plaintiffs’ free exercise of religion in violation of the First Amendment and the broad protections under RFRA.

[Thanks to Heather E. Kimmel for the lead.]

DHS Eases Requirements for Renewal of Foreign Religious Workers' Visas

The Department of Homeland Security yesterday issued a Release titled Improving Continuity for Religious Organizations and their Employees (full text). The Release announces the adoption of an Interim Final Rule in order to ease the shortage of foreign religious workers in the United States. The Rule, which will become effective upon publication in the Federal Register on January 16, eliminates the requirement that a holder of a 5-year R-1 Religious Worker visa remain outside the country for a full one year after the visa expires before applying for a new R-1 visa. Under the new rule, there is no minimum period of time that the religious worker must remain outside of the United States after his or her visa expires before seeking readmission as an R-1 non-immigrant.

According to a Release by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops:

This modification gives relief to religious workers and the communities they serve while the religious workers await legal permanent residency (commonly referred to as a “green card”). The wait time for a green card for religious workers has grown to several decades long.

The USCCB Release also urged Congress to pass the Religious Workforce Protection Act. 

EWTN News reports on the new rule.

3rd Circuit: Consular Decisions Cannot Be Challenged Under RFRA

 In Calvary Albuquerque Inc. v. Rubio, (10th Cir., May 6, 2025), the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision upheld a consular officer's denial of an R-1 (non-immigrant religious worker) visa to a South African minister who wanted to serve as the worship leader at an Albuquerque, New Mexico church.  Plaintiff contended that the visa denial violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, but the majority concluded that it could not reverse the decision of a consular officer under the consular nonreviewability doctrine. The majority said in part:

RFRA’s cause-of-action provision plainly does not expressly authorize judicial review of consular officers’ visa decisions.  Also, whether the provision stating RFRA applies to “all Federal law” expressly authorizes judicial review of consular officers’ visa decisions is ambiguous.  Applying statutory construction tools to that clause, we conclude that RFRA does not do so.....

Calvary argues the constitutional claim exception to the consular nonreviewability doctrine applies because it brought a free exercise claim under RFRA, and RFRA is analogous to a constitutional right.... Even if a RFRA claim could qualify for the exception, Calvary has not plausibly alleged that (a) the consular officer failed to provide a facially legitimate and bona fide reason to deny Mr. Green’s visa application or (b) the officer acted in bad faith....

Judge Bacharach dissented, contending that RFRA's language authorizes review of consular decisions.

Washington State Makes Clergy Mandatory Reporters of Child Abuse With No Exceptions for Privileged Information

On May 2, Washington state Governor Bob Ferguson signed Senate Bill 5375 (full text) which amends previous law to now require clergy to report child abuse or neglect when they have reasonable cause to believe that it has occurred. The bill deletes the previous exemption for clergy, even when they obtain the information through a privileged communication such as in a confessional. The Catholic diocese of Spokane reacted to the Governor's signing of the bill with a message (full text) that reads in part:

This week, Washington State Governor Bob Ferguson signed into law Senate Bill 5375, which seeks to force priests to violate the Seal of Confession if child abuse is revealed within the celebration of the sacrament. In light of this, I again, wish to reiterate my previous statement regarding this matter: 

I want to assure you that your shepherds, bishop and priests, are committed to keeping the seal of confession – even to the point of going to jail. The Sacrament of Penance is sacred and will remain that way in the Diocese of Spokane....

The Diocese of Spokane maintains an entire department at the Chancery, the Office of Child and Youth protection, staffed by professional laypeople. We have a zero-tolerance policy regarding child sexual abuse.

OSV News reports on the new law.

UPDATE: In a statement (full text) issued May 4, the Archbishop of Seattle said that any priest who violates the seal of Confession in order to comply with the new law will be excommunicated from the Catholic Church.

Oklahoma Indicts Megachurch Pastor on Charges of Lewd Acts With a Minor

The Oklahoma Attorney General has announced that on Wednesday a Multi-County Grand indicted the founder of a Texas Megachurch on five counts of lewd or indecent acts with a young girl. (Full text of indictment). The AG's press release (full text) announcing the indictment said in part:

Robert Preston Morris, 63, resigned last summer as senior pastor of Gateway Church. The Southlake, Texas-based megachurch is among the largest in the United States.

In December 1982, Morris was a traveling evangelist visiting in Hominy with the family of the alleged victim, who was 12 at the time. The indictment alleges Morris’ sexual misconduct began that Christmas and continued over the next four years....

The statute of limitations is not applicable in this case because Morris was not a resident or inhabitant of Oklahoma at any time.

NBC News reports on the indictment.

Refusing to Allow Minister To Wear Collar At His Criminal Trial Was Not Reversable Error

 In People v. Johnson, (CA App., Feb. 18, 2025), a California state appellate court held that a trial court's refusal to allow a criminal defendant, an ordained minister, to wear his clerical collar and have a Bible with him during his trial was not reversable error. Defendant was charged with gross vehicular homicide while intoxicated. The court said in part:

Assuming only for purposes of argument that the trial court erred in not allowing defendant to wear a collar, we must determine whether the error would have been prejudicial.  Federal constitutional error requires reversal unless the beneficiary of the error can show it was “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” ...

... [P]rohibiting defendant from wearing a clerical collar did not result in a structural defect in the constitution of his trial.  Nothing in the record indicates his inability to wear a collar impacted the outcome of his trial, interfered with his fundamental trial rights, or in any way impacted the trial’s structural truth-finding process.  Any error by the trial court in not allowing defendant to wear a collar was not structural. 

We thus must determine whether the assumed error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt...  Defendant offers no argument on this point.  As a result, he has forfeited the issue....  Any error by the trial court denying defendant his request to wear a clerical collar was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and not prejudicial.

The trial court sentenced defendant to 25 years to life under California's Three Strikes Law. The Court of Appeals however remanded the case for resentencing, finding that defendant did not receive fair notice that a three-strike sentence would be sought.

6 Clergy Will Offer Prayers at Trump Inauguration Today

Donald Trump's inauguration as President begins at 11:30 AM Eastern Time today. The ceremony includes prayers offered by clergy from a variety of faiths. According to CBS News, opening invocations will be delivered by Timothy Cardinal Dolan, the Archbishop of New York and Christian evangelist Rev. Franklin Graham.

The ceremony will conclude with benedictions offered by four clergymen: Rabbi Dr. Ari Berman, president of Yeshiva University; Imam Husham Al-Husainy, a founder of the Dearborn, Michigan Karbalaa Islamic Education Center;  Pastor Lorenzo Sewell of 180 Church in Detroit, Michigan; and the Rev. Father Frank Mann of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, New York.

The inauguration ceremony will be streamed live by numerous news organizations, including PBS News livestream beginning at 10:30 AM Eastern Time.

Australia's High Court Says Diocese Is Not Vicariously Liable for Sex Abuse by Priest [Corrected]

In Bird v DP (a pseudonym) , (HCA, Nov. 13, 2024), the High Court of Australia in an appeal from the Supreme Court of Victoria held that a Catholic diocese is not vicariously liable for sexual abuse of a five-year old boy by a priest from a parish church within the diocese. Plaintiff at age 49 instituted suit for the psychological injuries he had sustained as a child by two separate sexual assaults by the priest that took place at the child's home. The majority opinion on behalf of five justices held in part:

A diocese, through the person of the bishop of that diocese, appoints priests and assistant priests to parishes within that diocese.... In 1966, Coffey was appointed by the then Bishop of Ballarat to St Patrick's parish church.... Coffey was not employed by the Diocese or engaged by the Diocese as an independent contractor. There was no finding that Coffey was an agent of the Diocese.

... [A] relationship of employment has always been a necessary precursor in this country to a finding of vicarious liability and it has always been necessary that the wrongful acts must be committed in the course or scope of the employment. There is no solid foundation for expansion of the doctrine or for its bounds to be redrawn.

The majority explained its conclusion in part as follows: 

... [T]he Victorian Parliament enacted the Legal Identity of Defendants (Organisational Child Abuse) Act 2018 (Vic) and amended the Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic) in response to the Redress and Civil Litigation Report of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse...  and, in so doing, adopted the recommendation in the Royal Commission report of the imposition of a new duty of care to operate prospectively only and not retrospectively....

Taken as a whole, the terms of the Victorian Parliament's legislative reforms ... weigh heavily against any expansion of the common law doctrine of vicarious liability. The "genius of the common law" includes that the "the first statement of a common law rule or principle is not its final statement", but its genius also includes many self-imposed checks and balances against "unprincipled, social engineering on the part of the common law judges". It is one thing to accept that the common law should not stand still merely "because the legislature has not moved" to adapt to changing social conditions, but another to change a common law principle in circumstances where the legislature has responded to a comprehensive review of the common law's inadequacies by the enactment of statutory provisions which make no change to that common law principle.

Justice Jagot filed a concurring opinion.

Justice Gleeson filed an opinion concurring only in the result, saying in part:

Government attention to historical child abuse by members of religious and other non-government organisations, and subsequent legislative reform to extend liability for personal injury suffered because of child abuse, reflect an evolution of attitudes to the treatment of children in our society. That evolution has produced a general intolerance of physical, sexual and psychological abuse of children, and increased recognition of societal responsibility for setting and maintaining appropriate standards of care for children, especially in institutional settings. The evolution has also been accompanied by reduced deference towards religious and charitable organisations and a commensurate preparedness to impose legal liability upon religious and other non-government organisations, including for harms inflicted by persons associated with such organisations. These changes in social conditions are not unique to Australia and can be observed across the common law world and beyond.

This case is a missed opportunity for the Australian common law to develop in accordance with changed social conditions and in tandem with developments in other common law jurisdictions. For the reasons given below, I do not agree with the plurality that relationships that are akin to employment do not attract vicarious liability in Australia.

In my view, the relationship between the Diocese of Ballarat ...,  and Father Bryan Coffey ..., an assistant parish priest appointed to that role in the parish of Port Fairy, is capable of attracting vicarious liability. Nevertheless, the Diocese is not vicariously liable for the sexual assaults that Coffey inflicted upon DP because those torts occurred in circumstances where Coffey opportunistically took advantage of his role to commit them. The torts were therefore not committed in the course of Coffey's performance of his role as assistant parish priest. Accordingly, I agree with the orders proposed by the plurality.

Law and Religion Australia reports on the decision.

[An earlier version of this post incorrectly attributed some quotes from Justice Gleason to Justice Jaggot.]