Supreme Court – United Yam

U.S. Supreme Court hears dispute over faith-based pregnancy centers #Catholic

null / Credit: Wolfgang Schaller/Shutterstock

Washington, D.C., Dec 2, 2025 / 17:04 pm (CNA).
The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday on whether a New Jersey faith-based pregnancy center may immediately assert its First Amendment right to challenge a state subpoena demanding donor information — including names, addresses, and places of employment — in federal court, or whether it must first proceed through the state court system.The case, First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Platkin, has drawn support from a diverse array of groups, including the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, members of Congress, the Trump administration, and the ACLU. All argue that First Choice should be able to challenge the subpoena in federal court without first litigating the issue in New Jersey state court.At the center of the dispute is a 2023 subpoena issued by New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin seeking extensive donor information from First Choice. In 2022, Platkin created what he called a “reproductive rights strike force” to “protect access to abortion care,” and his office issued a “consumer alert” describing crisis pregnancy centers like First Choice as organizations that may provide “false or misleading information about the safety and legality of abortion.”In its Supreme Court brief, First Choice describes itself as a faith-based nonprofit serving women in New Jersey by providing material support and medical services such as ultrasounds and pregnancy tests under a licensed medical director. The organization does not provide or refer for abortions, a point it plainly and repeatedly states on its website.Platkin’s subpoena commanded First Choice to produce documents and information responsive to 28 separate demands, including the full names, phone numbers, addresses, and current or last known employers of every donor who contributed money by any means other than one specific website. It warned that failure to comply could result in contempt of court and other legal penalties.The attorney general’s office said it needed donor identities to determine whether contributors were “misled” into believing First Choice provided abortions. Platkin argued he needed donor contact information so he could “contact a representative sample and determine what they did or did not know about their donations.”First Choice quickly sued in federal court, arguing the subpoena violated its First Amendment rights by chilling its speech and freedom of association. The federal district court dismissed the case as “unripe,” ruling that the pregnancy center must wait until a New Jersey court seeks to enforce the subpoena. The Supreme Court later agreed to hear the case to determine whether First Choice may pursue its challenge in federal court now.At oral argument, First Choice’s attorney, Erin M. Hawley, told the justices that the court has “long safeguarded the freedom of association by protecting the membership and donor lists of nonprofit organizations.” Yet, she said, “the attorney general of New Jersey issued a sweeping subpoena commanding on pain of contempt that First Choice produce donor names, addresses, and phone numbers so his office could contact and question them. That violates the right of association.”Hawley urged the court to recognize that the subpoena was issued by “a hostile attorney general who has issued a consumer alert, urged New Jerseyans to beware of pregnancy centers, and assembled a strike force against them.”She also noted that the attorney general “has never identified a single complaint against First Choice” and that the threat of contempt and business dissolution is “a death knell for nonprofits like First Choice.”Arguing for New Jersey, Sundeep Iyer, the attorney general’s chief counsel, said First Choice had not demonstrated that the subpoena “objectively chilled” its First Amendment rights. He argued that the subpoena is “non-self-executing,” meaning it imposes no immediate obligation and cannot require compliance unless a court orders enforcement.Justice Neil Gorsuch appeared skeptical, noting that New Jersey law gives attorney general subpoenas the force of law and allows the attorney general to seek contempt orders against those who fail to comply. “I don’t know how to read that other than it’s pretty self-executing to me, counsel,” he said.Justice Elena Kagan questioned whether an “ordinary person” receiving such a subpoena would feel reassured by the claim that it required court approval before being enforced. A donor, she said, is unlikely “to take that as very reassuring.”In an amicus curiae brief, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops urged the court to side with First Choice. “Compelling disclosure of a religious organization’s financial support violates the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion,” the bishops wrote. Forced donor disclosure, they argued, interferes with a religious organization’s mission and burdens the free-exercise rights of donors who give anonymously in accordance with scriptural teachings.The Supreme Court is expected to issue a decision in the coming months.

unitedyam December 2, 2025

null / Credit: Wolfgang Schaller/Shutterstock

Washington, D.C., Dec 2, 2025 / 17:04 pm (CNA).

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday on whether a New Jersey faith-based pregnancy center may immediately assert its First Amendment right to challenge a state subpoena demanding donor information — including names, addresses, and places of employment — in federal court, or whether it must first proceed through the state court system.

The case, First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Platkin, has drawn support from a diverse array of groups, including the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, members of Congress, the Trump administration, and the ACLU. All argue that First Choice should be able to challenge the subpoena in federal court without first litigating the issue in New Jersey state court.

At the center of the dispute is a 2023 subpoena issued by New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin seeking extensive donor information from First Choice. In 2022, Platkin created what he called a “reproductive rights strike force” to “protect access to abortion care,” and his office issued a “consumer alert” describing crisis pregnancy centers like First Choice as organizations that may provide “false or misleading information about the safety and legality of abortion.”

In its Supreme Court brief, First Choice describes itself as a faith-based nonprofit serving women in New Jersey by providing material support and medical services such as ultrasounds and pregnancy tests under a licensed medical director. The organization does not provide or refer for abortions, a point it plainly and repeatedly states on its website.

Platkin’s subpoena commanded First Choice to produce documents and information responsive to 28 separate demands, including the full names, phone numbers, addresses, and current or last known employers of every donor who contributed money by any means other than one specific website. It warned that failure to comply could result in contempt of court and other legal penalties.

The attorney general’s office said it needed donor identities to determine whether contributors were “misled” into believing First Choice provided abortions. Platkin argued he needed donor contact information so he could “contact a representative sample and determine what they did or did not know about their donations.”

First Choice quickly sued in federal court, arguing the subpoena violated its First Amendment rights by chilling its speech and freedom of association. The federal district court dismissed the case as “unripe,” ruling that the pregnancy center must wait until a New Jersey court seeks to enforce the subpoena. The Supreme Court later agreed to hear the case to determine whether First Choice may pursue its challenge in federal court now.

At oral argument, First Choice’s attorney, Erin M. Hawley, told the justices that the court has “long safeguarded the freedom of association by protecting the membership and donor lists of nonprofit organizations.” Yet, she said, “the attorney general of New Jersey issued a sweeping subpoena commanding on pain of contempt that First Choice produce donor names, addresses, and phone numbers so his office could contact and question them. That violates the right of association.”

Hawley urged the court to recognize that the subpoena was issued by “a hostile attorney general who has issued a consumer alert, urged New Jerseyans to beware of pregnancy centers, and assembled a strike force against them.”

She also noted that the attorney general “has never identified a single complaint against First Choice” and that the threat of contempt and business dissolution is “a death knell for nonprofits like First Choice.”

Arguing for New Jersey, Sundeep Iyer, the attorney general’s chief counsel, said First Choice had not demonstrated that the subpoena “objectively chilled” its First Amendment rights. He argued that the subpoena is “non-self-executing,” meaning it imposes no immediate obligation and cannot require compliance unless a court orders enforcement.

Justice Neil Gorsuch appeared skeptical, noting that New Jersey law gives attorney general subpoenas the force of law and allows the attorney general to seek contempt orders against those who fail to comply. “I don’t know how to read that other than it’s pretty self-executing to me, counsel,” he said.

Justice Elena Kagan questioned whether an “ordinary person” receiving such a subpoena would feel reassured by the claim that it required court approval before being enforced. A donor, she said, is unlikely “to take that as very reassuring.”

In an amicus curiae brief, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops urged the court to side with First Choice. “Compelling disclosure of a religious organization’s financial support violates the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion,” the bishops wrote. Forced donor disclosure, they argued, interferes with a religious organization’s mission and burdens the free-exercise rights of donors who give anonymously in accordance with scriptural teachings.

The Supreme Court is expected to issue a decision in the coming months.

Catholic advocates petition New York foundation to fund pensions, church preservation #Catholic

St. Joseph Cathedral, Buffalo, New York. / Credit: CiEll/Shutterstock

CNA Staff, Nov 20, 2025 / 10:40 am (CNA).
Advocates in New York state are petitioning a Catholic foundation there to help fund major pension shortages and church preservation efforts as well as to help support victims of clergy sex abuse.In a Nov. 13 letter to the Mother Cabrini Health Foundation in New York City, representatives of the group Save Our Buffalo Churches, sexual abuse victims, and pensioners of the former St. Clare’s Hospital asked the foundation to help the three communities with the “profound hardship” they are experiencing.Numerous parishes in Buffalo have been fighting diocesan-mandated closures and mergers over the past year. Hundreds of former workers of St. Clare’s, meanwhile, saw their pensions reduced or eliminated starting in 2018 due to major shortfalls. The hospital itself closed about a decade before.Abuse victims, meanwhile, have “been locked in a legal morass, denied the long-term healing resources and institutional acknowledgment of the harm they endured,” the letter said.The foundation arose in 2018 after the Diocese of Brooklyn sold the health insurer Fidelis Care. The organization, whose roughly $3.2 billion in assets came from that sale, is named after Mother Frances Xavier Cabrini, the first American recognized as a saint, who founded the Missionary Sisters of the Sacred Heart of Jesus.The letter noted that Cabrini “devoted her life to the people others overlooked,” including immigrants and the poor.“Guided by that legacy, we ask the foundation to explore emergency relief, stabilization funds, and community support initiatives” to help fund the three groups.The letter-writers asked for a meeting with foundation leaders “to explore potential pathways for assistance aligned with both the foundation’s mission and the pressing needs of survivors, pensioners, and parish communities.”Mary Pruski, who leads the Save Our Buffalo Churches group, told CNA that advocates in New York City would be following up with the foundation this week.“This is a complex project and will bring much peace and healing across [New York state],” she said.Pensioners with St. Clare’s Hospital are currently in the midst of a lawsuit brought by New York state against the Diocese of Albany for what the state attorney general’s office says was “[failure] to adequately fund, manage, and protect hospital employees’ hard-earned pensions.”The prosecutor’s office alleges that the diocese “[failed] to take adequate measures” to secure the pension fund, including “failing to make any annual contributions to the pension for all but two years from 2000 to 2019 and hiding the collapse of the pension plan from former hospital workers who were vested in the plan.”Parishioners in Buffalo, meanwhile, have challenged the diocesan parish merger and closure plan, with advocates securing a reprieve against the diocese at the state Supreme Court in July.The state high court ultimately tossed the lawsuit out in September, ruling that the court had no jurisdiction over the dispute.

unitedyam November 20, 2025

St. Joseph Cathedral, Buffalo, New York. / Credit: CiEll/Shutterstock

CNA Staff, Nov 20, 2025 / 10:40 am (CNA).

Advocates in New York state are petitioning a Catholic foundation there to help fund major pension shortages and church preservation efforts as well as to help support victims of clergy sex abuse.

In a Nov. 13 letter to the Mother Cabrini Health Foundation in New York City, representatives of the group Save Our Buffalo Churches, sexual abuse victims, and pensioners of the former St. Clare’s Hospital asked the foundation to help the three communities with the “profound hardship” they are experiencing.

Numerous parishes in Buffalo have been fighting diocesan-mandated closures and mergers over the past year. Hundreds of former workers of St. Clare’s, meanwhile, saw their pensions reduced or eliminated starting in 2018 due to major shortfalls. The hospital itself closed about a decade before.

Abuse victims, meanwhile, have “been locked in a legal morass, denied the long-term healing resources and institutional acknowledgment of the harm they endured,” the letter said.

The foundation arose in 2018 after the Diocese of Brooklyn sold the health insurer Fidelis Care. The organization, whose roughly $3.2 billion in assets came from that sale, is named after Mother Frances Xavier Cabrini, the first American recognized as a saint, who founded the Missionary Sisters of the Sacred Heart of Jesus.

The letter noted that Cabrini “devoted her life to the people others overlooked,” including immigrants and the poor.

“Guided by that legacy, we ask the foundation to explore emergency relief, stabilization funds, and community support initiatives” to help fund the three groups.

The letter-writers asked for a meeting with foundation leaders “to explore potential pathways for assistance aligned with both the foundation’s mission and the pressing needs of survivors, pensioners, and parish communities.”

Mary Pruski, who leads the Save Our Buffalo Churches group, told CNA that advocates in New York City would be following up with the foundation this week.

“This is a complex project and will bring much peace and healing across [New York state],” she said.

Pensioners with St. Clare’s Hospital are currently in the midst of a lawsuit brought by New York state against the Diocese of Albany for what the state attorney general’s office says was “[failure] to adequately fund, manage, and protect hospital employees’ hard-earned pensions.”

The prosecutor’s office alleges that the diocese “[failed] to take adequate measures” to secure the pension fund, including “failing to make any annual contributions to the pension for all but two years from 2000 to 2019 and hiding the collapse of the pension plan from former hospital workers who were vested in the plan.”

Parishioners in Buffalo, meanwhile, have challenged the diocesan parish merger and closure plan, with advocates securing a reprieve against the diocese at the state Supreme Court in July.

The state high court ultimately tossed the lawsuit out in September, ruling that the court had no jurisdiction over the dispute.

CNA explains: Why does the Catholic Church prohibit ‘gay marriage’? #Catholic

null / Credit: Daniel Jedzura/Shutterstock

CNA Staff, Nov 17, 2025 / 06:00 am (CNA).
Slightly over 10 years after it redefined marriage to include same-sex couples, the U.S. Supreme Court on Nov. 10 declined to revisit that controversial decision, upholding at least for now its ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges that made “gay marriage” the law of the land.A decade after that ruling, nearly a million same-sex couples in the U.S. are participating in what the law now defines as marriage. Yet the Catholic Church has continued to affirm the definition of marriage as being exclusively a union between a man and a woman. That has been the prevailing definition of marriage around the world for at least about 5,000 years of human history, though many societies have allowed polygamy, or multiple spouses, in various forms. The same-sex variant of marriage, meanwhile, only became accepted in recent decades. The Church has held since its beginning that marriage is strictly between one man and one woman. The Catechism of the Catholic Church directs that marriage occurs when “a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life.” It is “by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring.”Church Fathers and theologians from the earliest days of Catholicism have consistently upheld that marriage is meant to be a lifelong, permanent union between one man and one woman, with St. Augustine explicitly naming “offspring” as one of the blessings of marriage, along with “fidelity” and “the sacramental bond.”Gay marriage a ‘misnomer’ by Church teachingJohn Grabowski, a professor of moral theology at The Catholic University of America, told CNA that marriage in the Catholic Church’s teaching is based on “unity, indissolubility, and [is ordered] toward life,” or the begetting of children.“Those criteria can only be met in a union between a man and a woman,” he said. “They cannot be met in a union between two men and two women. ‘Gay marriage’ is thus a misnomer in the Church’s understanding.”The Supreme Court’s redefinition of marriage, Grabowski argued, was an act of “judicial fiat” rather than a recognition of what marriage actually is. He said the high court was functioning more as a “cultural barometer” reflecting an erroneous shift in perception on what marriage is.“It would be similar to if the court passed a rule saying we could call a square a circle,” he said. “It’s just not based on the reality of the natural world.”The Obergefell ruling came after years of LGBT activist efforts to redefine marriage both within individual states and at the federal level. Advocates had argued that there was no meaningful reason to restrict marriage to opposite-sex couples and that to do so constituted discrimination. Many critics have claimed that the Church’s broader teaching on marriage actually left the door open for same-sex couples to marry — for instance, they argued, by allowing opposite-sex couples to marry even if one or both of the spouses are infertile, the Church implicitly divorces biological childbearing from marriage itself. Grabowski acknowledged that the Church does allow infertile couples to get married (and to stay married if infertility occurs at a later date). But he pointed out that the Church does in fact prohibit marriage for those who are impotent, or constitutionally incapable of intercourse. The key point for the Church, he said, is what St. John Paul II called the “spousal meaning of the body.” The late pope argued that men and women “exist in the relationship of the reciprocal gift of self,” ordered to the communion of “one flesh” of which the Bible speaks in Genesis. The Church’s teaching, Grabowski said, “is based on the natural law. It tells us that the way God designed us is for the good of our flourishing, both as individuals and as the good of society.”Though marriage advocates have continued to criticize the Supreme Court’s decision over the past decade, others have at times suggested a pivot away from directly challenging it at the legal level. In 2017, for instance, Winona-Rochester, Minnesota, Bishop Robert Barron affirmed his opposition to gay marriage but questioned “the prudence and wisdom” of attempting to legislatively outlaw it at that time. The bishop suggested instead that “personal witness and education” were better tools for the current political climate.Grabowski acknowledged that one “could say, realistically, the ship has sailed and the political question is dead.”“But that’s a political judgment,” he said. Catholics should not lose sight of the goal to reestablish correct laws on marriage, he argued.“In terms of something to hope for, pray for, and to the degree that we’re able to, work for it — that’s something Catholics should aspire to.”

unitedyam November 17, 2025

null / Credit: Daniel Jedzura/Shutterstock

CNA Staff, Nov 17, 2025 / 06:00 am (CNA).

Slightly over 10 years after it redefined marriage to include same-sex couples, the U.S. Supreme Court on Nov. 10 declined to revisit that controversial decision, upholding at least for now its ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges that made “gay marriage” the law of the land.

A decade after that ruling, nearly a million same-sex couples in the U.S. are participating in what the law now defines as marriage. Yet the Catholic Church has continued to affirm the definition of marriage as being exclusively a union between a man and a woman.

That has been the prevailing definition of marriage around the world for at least about 5,000 years of human history, though many societies have allowed polygamy, or multiple spouses, in various forms. The same-sex variant of marriage, meanwhile, only became accepted in recent decades.

The Church has held since its beginning that marriage is strictly between one man and one woman. The Catechism of the Catholic Church directs that marriage occurs when “a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life.” It is “by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring.”

Church Fathers and theologians from the earliest days of Catholicism have consistently upheld that marriage is meant to be a lifelong, permanent union between one man and one woman, with St. Augustine explicitly naming “offspring” as one of the blessings of marriage, along with “fidelity” and “the sacramental bond.”

Gay marriage a ‘misnomer’ by Church teaching

John Grabowski, a professor of moral theology at The Catholic University of America, told CNA that marriage in the Catholic Church’s teaching is based on “unity, indissolubility, and [is ordered] toward life,” or the begetting of children.

“Those criteria can only be met in a union between a man and a woman,” he said. “They cannot be met in a union between two men and two women. ‘Gay marriage’ is thus a misnomer in the Church’s understanding.”

The Supreme Court’s redefinition of marriage, Grabowski argued, was an act of “judicial fiat” rather than a recognition of what marriage actually is. He said the high court was functioning more as a “cultural barometer” reflecting an erroneous shift in perception on what marriage is.

“It would be similar to if the court passed a rule saying we could call a square a circle,” he said. “It’s just not based on the reality of the natural world.”

The Obergefell ruling came after years of LGBT activist efforts to redefine marriage both within individual states and at the federal level. Advocates had argued that there was no meaningful reason to restrict marriage to opposite-sex couples and that to do so constituted discrimination.

Many critics have claimed that the Church’s broader teaching on marriage actually left the door open for same-sex couples to marry — for instance, they argued, by allowing opposite-sex couples to marry even if one or both of the spouses are infertile, the Church implicitly divorces biological childbearing from marriage itself.

Grabowski acknowledged that the Church does allow infertile couples to get married (and to stay married if infertility occurs at a later date). But he pointed out that the Church does in fact prohibit marriage for those who are impotent, or constitutionally incapable of intercourse.

The key point for the Church, he said, is what St. John Paul II called the “spousal meaning of the body.” The late pope argued that men and women “exist in the relationship of the reciprocal gift of self,” ordered to the communion of “one flesh” of which the Bible speaks in Genesis.

The Church’s teaching, Grabowski said, “is based on the natural law. It tells us that the way God designed us is for the good of our flourishing, both as individuals and as the good of society.”

Though marriage advocates have continued to criticize the Supreme Court’s decision over the past decade, others have at times suggested a pivot away from directly challenging it at the legal level.

In 2017, for instance, Winona-Rochester, Minnesota, Bishop Robert Barron affirmed his opposition to gay marriage but questioned “the prudence and wisdom” of attempting to legislatively outlaw it at that time. The bishop suggested instead that “personal witness and education” were better tools for the current political climate.

Grabowski acknowledged that one “could say, realistically, the ship has sailed and the political question is dead.”

“But that’s a political judgment,” he said. Catholics should not lose sight of the goal to reestablish correct laws on marriage, he argued.

“In terms of something to hope for, pray for, and to the degree that we’re able to, work for it — that’s something Catholics should aspire to.”

Denver Archdiocese, Catholic schools ask Supreme Court for access to preschool program #Catholic

null / Credit: Wolfgang Schaller|Shutterstock

CNA Staff, Nov 15, 2025 / 11:00 am (CNA).
The Archdiocese of Denver and a coalition of Catholic preschools are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to allow them to access a Colorado universal preschool program.The petition to the high court comes after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit ruled in September that Colorado may continue to exclude Catholic preschools from its Universal Preschool Program because of their religious beliefs.Catholic preschools in Denver ask teachers and families to sign a pledge promising to uphold their religious mission, including teachings on sexuality and gender identity. The Colorado preschool program’s nondiscrimination clause, however, requires schools to uphold provisions on sexual orientation and “gender identity.”Two Catholic parish preschools and the Denver Archdiocese first filed suit in August 2023 against the requirement.In a Nov. 14 press release, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty — which has represented the schools and the archdiocese in the lawsuit — said the Catholic schools “are asking the Supreme Court to ensure that Colorado makes good on its promise of universal preschool.”“Colorado is picking winners and losers based on the content of their religious beliefs,” Nick Reaves, a senior lawyer at Becket, said in the release. “That sort of religious discrimination flies in the face of our nation’s traditions and decades of Supreme Court rulings,” he said. “We’re asking the court to step in and make sure ‘universal’ preschool really is universal.” Scott Elmer, who serves as chief mission officer for the Denver Archdiocese, said the schools are seeking “the ability to offer families who choose a Catholic education the same access to free preschool services that’s available at thousands of other preschools across Colorado.”Becket in its press release said the Colorado rules have had a “predictable effect” in which “enrollment at Catholic preschools has swiftly declined, while two Catholic preschools have shuttered their doors.”The law group said the lower court rulings go against recent Supreme Court decisions on religious freedom, including Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, which held that the Montana Constitution’s bar on public funding of religious institutions violated the First Amendment.In May the Supreme Court declined to rule in a contentious case involving what was proposed to be the nation’s first religious charter school, leaving untouched a lower court ruling that forbade the Oklahoma Catholic institution from accessing state funds.

unitedyam November 15, 2025

null / Credit: Wolfgang Schaller|Shutterstock

CNA Staff, Nov 15, 2025 / 11:00 am (CNA).

The Archdiocese of Denver and a coalition of Catholic preschools are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to allow them to access a Colorado universal preschool program.

The petition to the high court comes after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit ruled in September that Colorado may continue to exclude Catholic preschools from its Universal Preschool Program because of their religious beliefs.

Catholic preschools in Denver ask teachers and families to sign a pledge promising to uphold their religious mission, including teachings on sexuality and gender identity. The Colorado preschool program’s nondiscrimination clause, however, requires schools to uphold provisions on sexual orientation and “gender identity.”

Two Catholic parish preschools and the Denver Archdiocese first filed suit in August 2023 against the requirement.

In a Nov. 14 press release, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty — which has represented the schools and the archdiocese in the lawsuit — said the Catholic schools “are asking the Supreme Court to ensure that Colorado makes good on its promise of universal preschool.”

“Colorado is picking winners and losers based on the content of their religious beliefs,” Nick Reaves, a senior lawyer at Becket, said in the release.

“That sort of religious discrimination flies in the face of our nation’s traditions and decades of Supreme Court rulings,” he said. “We’re asking the court to step in and make sure ‘universal’ preschool really is universal.”

Scott Elmer, who serves as chief mission officer for the Denver Archdiocese, said the schools are seeking “the ability to offer families who choose a Catholic education the same access to free preschool services that’s available at thousands of other preschools across Colorado.”

Becket in its press release said the Colorado rules have had a “predictable effect” in which “enrollment at Catholic preschools has swiftly declined, while two Catholic preschools have shuttered their doors.”

The law group said the lower court rulings go against recent Supreme Court decisions on religious freedom, including Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, which held that the Montana Constitution’s bar on public funding of religious institutions violated the First Amendment.

In May the Supreme Court declined to rule in a contentious case involving what was proposed to be the nation’s first religious charter school, leaving untouched a lower court ruling that forbade the Oklahoma Catholic institution from accessing state funds.

Sex abuse victims in New Orleans Archdiocese approve 0 million settlement #Catholic

The St. Louis Cathedral and Jackson Square are seen at sunset near the French Quarter in downtown New Orleans on April 10, 2010. / Credit: Graythen/Getty Images

CNA Staff, Oct 31, 2025 / 10:30 am (CNA).
The Archdiocese of New Orleans secured nearly unanimous approval for a 0 million bankruptcy settlement on Thursday, paving the way for payouts to over 650 victims after five years of contentious litigation in the nation’s second-oldest Catholic archdiocese.The vote, which closed at midnight on Oct. 30, saw 99.63% of creditors — including hundreds of abuse survivors — endorse the plan in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court of the Eastern District of Louisiana, according to The Guardian.Only the bondholder class, owed million, opposed it, voting against the plan by a vote of 59 to 14, according to court documents. In 2017, bondholders lent the Church million to help refinance parish debt and have been repaid only 25% of the outstanding balance. They have alleged fraud against the Church after it withheld promised interest payments. Legal experts say their “no” vote will not derail confirmation of the settlement, however. “Your honor, there is overwhelming support for this plan,” archdiocese attorney Mark Mintz said in court on Thursday. The plan required that two-thirds of voters approve it.Final tallies of the votes will be filed next week, and a hearing before Judge Meredith Grabill is set for mid-November, potentially ending the archdiocese’s Chapter 11 case filed in May 2020 amid a flood of abuse claims.In a statement to CNA, the archdiocese said: “Today we have the voting results of our proposed settlement and reorganization plan, which has been overwhelmingly approved by survivors and other creditors. We are grateful to the survivors who have voted in favor of moving forward with this plan and continue to pray that both the monetary settlement and the nonmonetary provisions provide each of them some path towards their healing and reconciliation.”Archbishop Gregory Aymond originally told the Vatican in a letter that he thought he could settle abuse claims for around million. The archdiocese has spent close to million so far on legal fees alone.The settlement going to abuse victims breaks down to 0 million in immediate cash from the archdiocese and affiliates, million in promissory notes, million from insurers, and up to million more from property sales, including the Christopher Homes facilities, a property that has provided affordable housing and assisted living to low-income and senior citizens in the Gulf Coast area for the last 50 years.Payout amounts to individual claimants will be determined by a point system negotiated by a committee of victims and administered by a trustee and an independent claims administrator appointed by the court. The point system is based on the type and nature of the alleged abuse. Additional points can be awarded for factors like participation in criminal prosecutions, pre-bankruptcy lawsuits, or leadership in victim efforts, while points may be reduced if the claimant was over 18 and consented to the contact. The impact of the alleged abuse on the victim’s behavior, academic achievement, mental health, faith, and family relationships can also adjust the score.Abuse victim Richard Coon cast his vote on Monday. “I voted ‘yes’ to get Aymond out of town. I just think he’s been a horrible leader,” Coon said.In September, Pope Leo XIV named Bishop James Checchio as coadjutor archbishop of New Orleans. Checchio has been working alongside Aymond and will replace him when he retires, which Aymond has said he plans to do when the bankruptcy case is resolved.The 0 million deal is significantly higher than the initial 0 million proposal in May, which drew fire from attorneys like Richard Trahant, who criticized it for being “lowball.”The initial settlement was “dead on arrival,” according to Trahant, who, along with other attorneys, urged his clients in May to hold out for a better offer, saying they deserved closer to 0 million, a figure similar to the 3 million paid out to about 600 claimants by the Diocese of Rockville Centre in New York in 2024. “There is no amount of money that could ever make these survivors whole,” Trahant said in a statement Thursday.In the Diocese of Rockville Centre bankruptcy settlement, attorneys reportedly collected about 30% of the 3 million, or approximately .9 million. Similarly, the Los Angeles Archdiocese’s 0 million settlement in 2007 saw attorneys receiving an estimated 5-7.8 million, or 25%-33% of the payout.The bankruptcy stemmed from explosive revelations in 2018, when the Archdiocese of New Orleans listed over 50 credibly accused priests. In 2021, the Louisiana Legislature eliminated the statute of limitations for civil actions related to the sexual abuse of minors. The new law allows victims to pursue civil damages indefinitely for abuse occurring on or after June 14, 1992, or where the victim was a minor as of June 14, 2021, with a three-year filing window (which ended June 14, 2024) for older cases. The Diocese of Lafayette, along with the Archdiocese of New Orleans, the Diocese of Baton Rouge, the Diocese of Houma-Thibodaux, Catholic Charities, the Diocese of Lake Charles, and several other entities challenged the law’s constitutionality, arguing it violated due process, but the Louisiana Supreme Court upheld it in June 2024 in a 4-3 decision.Critics argued the retroactive nature of the law risks unfairness to defendants unable to defend against decades-old abuse claims due to lost evidence and highlighted the potentially devastating financial impact.

unitedyam October 31, 2025

The St. Louis Cathedral and Jackson Square are seen at sunset near the French Quarter in downtown New Orleans on April 10, 2010. / Credit: Graythen/Getty Images

CNA Staff, Oct 31, 2025 / 10:30 am (CNA).

The Archdiocese of New Orleans secured nearly unanimous approval for a $230 million bankruptcy settlement on Thursday, paving the way for payouts to over 650 victims after five years of contentious litigation in the nation’s second-oldest Catholic archdiocese.

The vote, which closed at midnight on Oct. 30, saw 99.63% of creditors — including hundreds of abuse survivors — endorse the plan in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court of the Eastern District of Louisiana, according to The Guardian.

Only the bondholder class, owed $30 million, opposed it, voting against the plan by a vote of 59 to 14, according to court documents. In 2017, bondholders lent the Church $40 million to help refinance parish debt and have been repaid only 25% of the outstanding balance. They have alleged fraud against the Church after it withheld promised interest payments. Legal experts say their “no” vote will not derail confirmation of the settlement, however.

“Your honor, there is overwhelming support for this plan,” archdiocese attorney Mark Mintz said in court on Thursday. The plan required that two-thirds of voters approve it.

Final tallies of the votes will be filed next week, and a hearing before Judge Meredith Grabill is set for mid-November, potentially ending the archdiocese’s Chapter 11 case filed in May 2020 amid a flood of abuse claims.

In a statement to CNA, the archdiocese said: “Today we have the voting results of our proposed settlement and reorganization plan, which has been overwhelmingly approved by survivors and other creditors. We are grateful to the survivors who have voted in favor of moving forward with this plan and continue to pray that both the monetary settlement and the nonmonetary provisions provide each of them some path towards their healing and reconciliation.”

Archbishop Gregory Aymond originally told the Vatican in a letter that he thought he could settle abuse claims for around $7 million. The archdiocese has spent close to $50 million so far on legal fees alone.

The settlement going to abuse victims breaks down to $130 million in immediate cash from the archdiocese and affiliates, $20 million in promissory notes, $30 million from insurers, and up to $50 million more from property sales, including the Christopher Homes facilities, a property that has provided affordable housing and assisted living to low-income and senior citizens in the Gulf Coast area for the last 50 years.

Payout amounts to individual claimants will be determined by a point system negotiated by a committee of victims and administered by a trustee and an independent claims administrator appointed by the court.

The point system is based on the type and nature of the alleged abuse. Additional points can be awarded for factors like participation in criminal prosecutions, pre-bankruptcy lawsuits, or leadership in victim efforts, while points may be reduced if the claimant was over 18 and consented to the contact. The impact of the alleged abuse on the victim’s behavior, academic achievement, mental health, faith, and family relationships can also adjust the score.

Abuse victim Richard Coon cast his vote on Monday. “I voted ‘yes’ to get Aymond out of town. I just think he’s been a horrible leader,” Coon said.

In September, Pope Leo XIV named Bishop James Checchio as coadjutor archbishop of New Orleans. Checchio has been working alongside Aymond and will replace him when he retires, which Aymond has said he plans to do when the bankruptcy case is resolved.

The $230 million deal is significantly higher than the initial $180 million proposal in May, which drew fire from attorneys like Richard Trahant, who criticized it for being “lowball.”

The initial settlement was “dead on arrival,” according to Trahant, who, along with other attorneys, urged his clients in May to hold out for a better offer, saying they deserved closer to $300 million, a figure similar to the $323 million paid out to about 600 claimants by the Diocese of Rockville Centre in New York in 2024.

“There is no amount of money that could ever make these survivors whole,” Trahant said in a statement Thursday.

In the Diocese of Rockville Centre bankruptcy settlement, attorneys reportedly collected about 30% of the $323 million, or approximately $96.9 million. Similarly, the Los Angeles Archdiocese’s $660 million settlement in 2007 saw attorneys receiving an estimated $165-$217.8 million, or 25%-33% of the payout.

The bankruptcy stemmed from explosive revelations in 2018, when the Archdiocese of New Orleans listed over 50 credibly accused priests. In 2021, the Louisiana Legislature eliminated the statute of limitations for civil actions related to the sexual abuse of minors.

The new law allows victims to pursue civil damages indefinitely for abuse occurring on or after June 14, 1992, or where the victim was a minor as of June 14, 2021, with a three-year filing window (which ended June 14, 2024) for older cases.

The Diocese of Lafayette, along with the Archdiocese of New Orleans, the Diocese of Baton Rouge, the Diocese of Houma-Thibodaux, Catholic Charities, the Diocese of Lake Charles, and several other entities challenged the law’s constitutionality, arguing it violated due process, but the Louisiana Supreme Court upheld it in June 2024 in a 4-3 decision.

Critics argued the retroactive nature of the law risks unfairness to defendants unable to defend against decades-old abuse claims due to lost evidence and highlighted the potentially devastating financial impact.