Dismissed

Supreme Court declines to intervene in federal lawsuit over Peter’s Pence papal collection #Catholic The U.S. bishops will continue to face a lawsuit over millions of dollars in contested papal donations after the U.S. Supreme Court on May 26 refused to weigh in on the case. The decision represents a blow for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), which was seeking to have the lawsuit dismissed on religious liberty grounds. The high court did not explain its reason for rejecting the petition from the U.S. bishops, issuing the decision as part of a larger order list.Rhode Island resident David OʼConnell filed the class action suit against the bishops in January 2020, alleging that the prelates had misled Catholics about the nature of the annual Peterʼs Pence papal collection.OʼConnell claimed he had been led to believe that the offering — which dates back centuries and which is used to help fund the popeʼs charitable initiatives — was strictly for emergency assistance to victims of war and poverty; OʼConnell said he subsequently found out it was used in part to “defray Vatican administrative expenses.”The U.S. bishops argued in court that the suit should be dismissed on the grounds of the “church autonomy doctrine,” a long-standing principle in U.S. case law that bars the government from exercising control over internal church decisions. Both a federal district court and an appeals court ruled against the bishops. The Supreme Courtʼs refusal to consider the case means it will continue to work its way through the lower courts. In a statement on May 26, Daniel Blomberg — a senior attorney at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which is representing the bishops — said the decision was “disappointing.” But he said the USCCB is “evaluating all of its options moving forward” and “remains committed to protecting the Church from unconstitutional government entanglement.” Multiple religious advocates have come out in favor of the bishops in the dispute. A coalition of organizations including the Thomas More Society, the Lutheran Church — Missouri Synod, and several other groups filed an amicus brief at the Supreme Court in January arguing that their respective religious beliefs involve “matters of internal governance that must be protected from government entwinement.”In their petition to the Supreme Court, meanwhile, the bishops alleged that OʼConnell was "leveraging civil power for religious ends," claiming the plaintiff was “essentially seek[ing] the structural reform of a religious institution."Such disputes “are beyond the ken of civil courts,” the bishops argued, claiming that the suit includes “demands for lists of papal donors, accounting for the pope’s use of Peter’s Pence, and disclosure of the bishops’ internal communications with the Holy See about Peter’s Pence.”The suit threatens to “thrust civil courts into church pulpits and pews … pit millions of parishioners against their Church, and second-guess the meaning of an offering given to the head of a foreign religious sovereign for over 1,000 years,” the bishops said.
Read More

Supreme Court declines to intervene in federal lawsuit over Peter’s Pence papal collection #Catholic The U.S. bishops will continue to face a lawsuit over millions of dollars in contested papal donations after the U.S. Supreme Court on May 26 refused to weigh in on the case. The decision represents a blow for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), which was seeking to have the lawsuit dismissed on religious liberty grounds. The high court did not explain its reason for rejecting the petition from the U.S. bishops, issuing the decision as part of a larger order list.Rhode Island resident David OʼConnell filed the class action suit against the bishops in January 2020, alleging that the prelates had misled Catholics about the nature of the annual Peterʼs Pence papal collection.OʼConnell claimed he had been led to believe that the offering — which dates back centuries and which is used to help fund the popeʼs charitable initiatives — was strictly for emergency assistance to victims of war and poverty; OʼConnell said he subsequently found out it was used in part to “defray Vatican administrative expenses.”The U.S. bishops argued in court that the suit should be dismissed on the grounds of the “church autonomy doctrine,” a long-standing principle in U.S. case law that bars the government from exercising control over internal church decisions. Both a federal district court and an appeals court ruled against the bishops. The Supreme Courtʼs refusal to consider the case means it will continue to work its way through the lower courts. In a statement on May 26, Daniel Blomberg — a senior attorney at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which is representing the bishops — said the decision was “disappointing.” But he said the USCCB is “evaluating all of its options moving forward” and “remains committed to protecting the Church from unconstitutional government entanglement.” Multiple religious advocates have come out in favor of the bishops in the dispute. A coalition of organizations including the Thomas More Society, the Lutheran Church — Missouri Synod, and several other groups filed an amicus brief at the Supreme Court in January arguing that their respective religious beliefs involve “matters of internal governance that must be protected from government entwinement.”In their petition to the Supreme Court, meanwhile, the bishops alleged that OʼConnell was "leveraging civil power for religious ends," claiming the plaintiff was “essentially seek[ing] the structural reform of a religious institution."Such disputes “are beyond the ken of civil courts,” the bishops argued, claiming that the suit includes “demands for lists of papal donors, accounting for the pope’s use of Peter’s Pence, and disclosure of the bishops’ internal communications with the Holy See about Peter’s Pence.”The suit threatens to “thrust civil courts into church pulpits and pews … pit millions of parishioners against their Church, and second-guess the meaning of an offering given to the head of a foreign religious sovereign for over 1,000 years,” the bishops said.

unitedyam

The lawsuit will continue in the federal courts after the Supreme Court refused to consider a religious liberty objection by the U.S. bishops.

Read More
Alabama cannot execute convicted murderer with low IQ after Supreme Court ruling #Catholic The Supreme Court on May 21 rejected an attempt by the state of Alabama to execute a convicted murderer whose low IQ may render him intellectually disabled and thus protected from capital punishment by the U.S. Constitution. The court in an unsigned order dismissed an appeal from Alabama after the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Joseph Clifton Smith, with the appeals court holding that Smithʼs low-70s IQ put him close enough to the threshold of an intellectually disability to render his death sentence unconstitutional. The court heard oral arguments in the case in December 2025. The case had followed a twisting path through the federal court system; the 11th Circuit first ruled in Smithʼs favor in 2023, after which the Supreme Court in 2024 vacated that decision and ordered the appeals court to consider it again. A second review by the lower court, with another favorable ruling for Smith, again brought the case before the Supreme Court last year; the high courtʼs May 21 ruling brought the case to an end.The latest ruling represents a potential precedent in how the Supreme Court considers certain cases of capital punishment. The court ruled in the 2002 case Atkins v. Virginia that executing people with intellectual disabilities violated the Constitution’s Eighth Amendment, which prohibits “cruel and unusual punishment." The justices did not define “intellectual disability” in that case, though it cited expert opinion that “an IQ between 70 and 75 or lower” is “typically considered the cutoff” in some definitions. Theresa Farnan, philosopher on the Ethics and Public Policy Committee of the National Catholic Partnership on Disability, told EWTN News in April that Smithʼs death sentence was “clearly a borderline case.” Smith was convicted in the brutal 1997 slaying of Durk Van Dam. “It’s obvious to me he could not grasp the gravity of his crimes,“ Farnan said of Smith. ”In cases like these, the burden on us as a society is even more pronounced to be radically pro-life.”The Catholic Church in recent decades has come out increasingly against the death penalty, with multiple popes arguing that modern penal systems have rendered capital punishment inadmissible in many if not most cases.Pope Leo XIV in particular has spoken out several times against the death penalty in just the first year of his pontificate, arguing that “human life is to be respected” and that support for capital punishment is incompatible with a pro-life philosophy.
Read More

Alabama cannot execute convicted murderer with low IQ after Supreme Court ruling #Catholic The Supreme Court on May 21 rejected an attempt by the state of Alabama to execute a convicted murderer whose low IQ may render him intellectually disabled and thus protected from capital punishment by the U.S. Constitution. The court in an unsigned order dismissed an appeal from Alabama after the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Joseph Clifton Smith, with the appeals court holding that Smithʼs low-70s IQ put him close enough to the threshold of an intellectually disability to render his death sentence unconstitutional. The court heard oral arguments in the case in December 2025. The case had followed a twisting path through the federal court system; the 11th Circuit first ruled in Smithʼs favor in 2023, after which the Supreme Court in 2024 vacated that decision and ordered the appeals court to consider it again. A second review by the lower court, with another favorable ruling for Smith, again brought the case before the Supreme Court last year; the high courtʼs May 21 ruling brought the case to an end.The latest ruling represents a potential precedent in how the Supreme Court considers certain cases of capital punishment. The court ruled in the 2002 case Atkins v. Virginia that executing people with intellectual disabilities violated the Constitution’s Eighth Amendment, which prohibits “cruel and unusual punishment." The justices did not define “intellectual disability” in that case, though it cited expert opinion that “an IQ between 70 and 75 or lower” is “typically considered the cutoff” in some definitions. Theresa Farnan, philosopher on the Ethics and Public Policy Committee of the National Catholic Partnership on Disability, told EWTN News in April that Smithʼs death sentence was “clearly a borderline case.” Smith was convicted in the brutal 1997 slaying of Durk Van Dam. “It’s obvious to me he could not grasp the gravity of his crimes,“ Farnan said of Smith. ”In cases like these, the burden on us as a society is even more pronounced to be radically pro-life.”The Catholic Church in recent decades has come out increasingly against the death penalty, with multiple popes arguing that modern penal systems have rendered capital punishment inadmissible in many if not most cases.Pope Leo XIV in particular has spoken out several times against the death penalty in just the first year of his pontificate, arguing that “human life is to be respected” and that support for capital punishment is incompatible with a pro-life philosophy.

unitedyam

The court has previously held that people with intellectual disabilities may not be executed under the U.S. Constitution.

Read More