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.
