Justices

Catholics weigh in as Supreme Court faces deadline on telemedicine abortion ruling #Catholic The U.S. Supreme Court’s stay on the 5th Circuit’s ruling restricting access to telemedicine abortions is set to expire May 11, a deadline that could bring an extension, allow the restrictions to take effect, or prompt the justices to take up the case in full.Michael New, assistant professor of social research at The Catholic University of America’s Busch School of Business, told “EWTN News Nightly” on May 8: “The Supreme Court may extend the stay if they need more time to deliberate; they may simply uphold the 5th Circuit Courtʼs decision that bans tele-abortion, and the ban will go into effect; or they may want to do a full hearing [and] conduct oral arguments.”The Supreme Court on May 4 temporarily blocked a lower court order requiring in‑person dispensing of mifepristone after two manufacturers asked the justices to intervene, prompting Justice Samuel Alito to issue an administrative stay that restores mail‑order access until May 11 at 5 p.m. ET while the court weighs the request.Although Alito instructed the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the state of Louisiana to respond by 5 p.m. ET on May 7, the Justice Department failed to do so.New described the development as “odd,” saying the failure by the Justice Department, which represents the FDA, to meet the filing deadline could be that “they don’t want to defend the FDA’s position any longer” or that it may signal a policy change.“Sometimes when people think theyʼre going to lose a case, they change public policy because theyʼd rather change policy than, you know, lose a court case,” New said. “Itʼs really hard to say at this point.”Ultimately, New said the Supreme Court should “absolutely” reinstate in-person requirements to obtain abortion pills, saying: “Thereʼs some real serious public health issues at play here.”Judicial Crisis Network President Carrie Severino gave context for the latest developments in a May 7 interview on EWTN’s “The World Over with Raymond Arroyo,” noting that the FDAʼs ongoing approval of nationwide mail-order abortion effectively circumvents Louisiana law protecting unborn human life. “The court should decide hopefully by the 11th, because thatʼs when the stay expires,” she said. “If they donʼt make any decision, then the 5th Circuit ruling goes back into effect and the FDA will have to disallow mailing of these pills, at least during the pendency of litigation,” said Severino, who is also a former Supreme Court clerk.U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. ordered the FDA to carry out a review of the abortion drug in May 2025, which is still ongoing.Ultimately, Severino said, the Supreme Court will not be ruling on “what the FDA needs to do at the end of the day” but on whether abortion drugs will be allowed to be mailed into Louisiana or not.“Eventually, you know, then itʼs going to go back and the district court and the 5th Circuit are going to have to reconsider it,” she said. “It could well return to the Supreme Court ultimately, but thatʼs going to be a ways down the litigation.”The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has spoken out against the dangers of mail-order abortion drugs for women and urged the FDA to restore in-person visits to screen for life-threatening conditions such as ectopic pregnancies as well as abuse and human trafficking.
Read More

Catholics weigh in as Supreme Court faces deadline on telemedicine abortion ruling #Catholic The U.S. Supreme Court’s stay on the 5th Circuit’s ruling restricting access to telemedicine abortions is set to expire May 11, a deadline that could bring an extension, allow the restrictions to take effect, or prompt the justices to take up the case in full.Michael New, assistant professor of social research at The Catholic University of America’s Busch School of Business, told “EWTN News Nightly” on May 8: “The Supreme Court may extend the stay if they need more time to deliberate; they may simply uphold the 5th Circuit Courtʼs decision that bans tele-abortion, and the ban will go into effect; or they may want to do a full hearing [and] conduct oral arguments.”The Supreme Court on May 4 temporarily blocked a lower court order requiring in‑person dispensing of mifepristone after two manufacturers asked the justices to intervene, prompting Justice Samuel Alito to issue an administrative stay that restores mail‑order access until May 11 at 5 p.m. ET while the court weighs the request.Although Alito instructed the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the state of Louisiana to respond by 5 p.m. ET on May 7, the Justice Department failed to do so.New described the development as “odd,” saying the failure by the Justice Department, which represents the FDA, to meet the filing deadline could be that “they don’t want to defend the FDA’s position any longer” or that it may signal a policy change.“Sometimes when people think theyʼre going to lose a case, they change public policy because theyʼd rather change policy than, you know, lose a court case,” New said. “Itʼs really hard to say at this point.”Ultimately, New said the Supreme Court should “absolutely” reinstate in-person requirements to obtain abortion pills, saying: “Thereʼs some real serious public health issues at play here.”Judicial Crisis Network President Carrie Severino gave context for the latest developments in a May 7 interview on EWTN’s “The World Over with Raymond Arroyo,” noting that the FDAʼs ongoing approval of nationwide mail-order abortion effectively circumvents Louisiana law protecting unborn human life. “The court should decide hopefully by the 11th, because thatʼs when the stay expires,” she said. “If they donʼt make any decision, then the 5th Circuit ruling goes back into effect and the FDA will have to disallow mailing of these pills, at least during the pendency of litigation,” said Severino, who is also a former Supreme Court clerk.U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. ordered the FDA to carry out a review of the abortion drug in May 2025, which is still ongoing.Ultimately, Severino said, the Supreme Court will not be ruling on “what the FDA needs to do at the end of the day” but on whether abortion drugs will be allowed to be mailed into Louisiana or not.“Eventually, you know, then itʼs going to go back and the district court and the 5th Circuit are going to have to reconsider it,” she said. “It could well return to the Supreme Court ultimately, but thatʼs going to be a ways down the litigation.”The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has spoken out against the dangers of mail-order abortion drugs for women and urged the FDA to restore in-person visits to screen for life-threatening conditions such as ectopic pregnancies as well as abuse and human trafficking.

unitedyam

U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. ordered a review of the abortion drug mifipristone in May 2025, which is ongoing.

Read More
Maryland Supreme Court: State cannot reveal names of individuals who allegedly hid Church abuse #Catholic Prosecutors in Maryland may not reveal the names of individuals who allegedly hid or failed to report Church abuse, the state Supreme Court said April 27. As part of its investigation into alleged abuse in the Archdiocese of Baltimore, the state attorney generalʼs office had sought to make public the details of a grand jury report, including the identities of individuals who have not been charged with a crime but who allegedly failed to stop abuse from occurring. A lower court granted the attorney generalʼs request to publish the information, with an appellate court partly upholding that decision. Yet in its April 27 ruling, the Maryland Supreme Court reversed those decisions, holding that the attorney generalʼs office did not “meet [the] burden” of justifying the release of the identities. “Many grand jury investigations obtain damaging information and allegations about uncharged individuals that the public might benefit from learning,” the high court acknowledged. But “one of the primary purposes of grand jury secrecy is to protect uncharged persons from public disgrace in the absence of a criminal charge and a forum in which to seek vindication,” it said. “A court may not order disclosure of secret grand jury material, over the objection of an uncharged individual, for the purpose of holding that person accountable in the court of public opinion,” the justices said. The court noted that the attorney generalʼs office had argued that the “intensity of public interest” in the case could justify revealing the identities.Yet “the interests promoted by grand jury secrecy do not increase or decrease based on how much the public wants to learn the information contained in grand jury materials,” the court said.The decision comes amid ongoing court proceedings in the Archdiocese of Baltimore, which filed for bankruptcy in September 2023 ahead of a wave of sex abuse claims filed against it under the Maryland Child Victims Act. Earlier this month, the archdiocesan insurer Hartford Insurance Group proposed contributing $100 million to a settlement for abuse victims. The archdiocese in 2024 sued multiple insurers over what it claimed was a failure to pay abuse claims for which the insurers were contractually obligated.In 2024 Archbishop William Lori attended two court-ordered “listening sessions” with alleged victims of sexual abuse, with the prelate describing himself as "deeply moved by their very powerful testimony.”
Read More

Maryland Supreme Court: State cannot reveal names of individuals who allegedly hid Church abuse #Catholic Prosecutors in Maryland may not reveal the names of individuals who allegedly hid or failed to report Church abuse, the state Supreme Court said April 27. As part of its investigation into alleged abuse in the Archdiocese of Baltimore, the state attorney generalʼs office had sought to make public the details of a grand jury report, including the identities of individuals who have not been charged with a crime but who allegedly failed to stop abuse from occurring. A lower court granted the attorney generalʼs request to publish the information, with an appellate court partly upholding that decision. Yet in its April 27 ruling, the Maryland Supreme Court reversed those decisions, holding that the attorney generalʼs office did not “meet [the] burden” of justifying the release of the identities. “Many grand jury investigations obtain damaging information and allegations about uncharged individuals that the public might benefit from learning,” the high court acknowledged. But “one of the primary purposes of grand jury secrecy is to protect uncharged persons from public disgrace in the absence of a criminal charge and a forum in which to seek vindication,” it said. “A court may not order disclosure of secret grand jury material, over the objection of an uncharged individual, for the purpose of holding that person accountable in the court of public opinion,” the justices said. The court noted that the attorney generalʼs office had argued that the “intensity of public interest” in the case could justify revealing the identities.Yet “the interests promoted by grand jury secrecy do not increase or decrease based on how much the public wants to learn the information contained in grand jury materials,” the court said.The decision comes amid ongoing court proceedings in the Archdiocese of Baltimore, which filed for bankruptcy in September 2023 ahead of a wave of sex abuse claims filed against it under the Maryland Child Victims Act. Earlier this month, the archdiocesan insurer Hartford Insurance Group proposed contributing $100 million to a settlement for abuse victims. The archdiocese in 2024 sued multiple insurers over what it claimed was a failure to pay abuse claims for which the insurers were contractually obligated.In 2024 Archbishop William Lori attended two court-ordered “listening sessions” with alleged victims of sexual abuse, with the prelate describing himself as "deeply moved by their very powerful testimony.”

unitedyam

“Uncharged individuals” may not be exposed to the “court of public opinion” in grand jury documents, the state high court ruled.

Read More
Quebec secularism law is ‘anti-religious ideology,’ bishops tell Canada Supreme Court #Catholic Canada’s bishops told the Supreme Court of Canada that Quebec’s secularism legislation Bill 21 “denies the divine” going well beyond provincial jurisdiction by imposing an anti-religious ideology on the province.The bishops were among more than 50 intervenors presenting arguments at a landmark Supreme Court of Canada hearing into the constitutionality of Quebec’s 2019 secularism law. The hearing, one of the longest in the court’s history, ran from March 23–26. The court reserved its decision, with a ruling expected later this year.The secularism law, which lower courts have twice upheld, prohibits certain public employees — such as teachers and police officers — from wearing religious symbols while at work.Toronto lawyer Phil Horgan, president and general counsel of the Catholic Civil Rights League (CCRL), argued on behalf of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB), summarizing a factum that argued the “purpose and effect” of Quebec’s legislation is to “amend Canada’s federal constitution by imposing an anti-religious, non-neutral ideology, which goes beyond Québec’s jurisdiction.”Such a “drastic” change can only be made by the federal government using its authority over criminal law or its constitutional “peace, order, and good government” powers, according to the bishops’ argument.Quebec preemptively invoked the notwithstanding clause of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms when it drafted Bill 21 to shield it from judicial review.Federal and provincial governments can invoke the notwithstanding clause of the Constitution to temporarily prevent courts from invalidating legislation as unconstitutional.The timing and impact of the use of Charter Section 33 became a significant issue during the four days of hearings and will likely be central in the court’s analysis, Horgan told The Catholic Register.The appellants challenging Bill 21 include individual teachers directly affected by it as well as advocacy groups including the National Council of Canadian Muslims (NCCM), the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA), and the Legal Committee of the Coalition Inclusion Québec. They argue Bill 21 is “ultra vires,” beyond the powers of provincial jurisdiction.In a five-minute oral argument, Horgan told the seven justices that “Canada’s existing federal constitution is pluralist and pro-religion.” Although “the doctrine of state neutrality is well established, Canada has never adopted laicity or an absolutist separation of church and state,” he said.Justice Malcolm Rowe questioned Horgan on the point, asking: “Other than the reference to the supremacy of God in the preamble to the Charter, would you direct me to the provision in the Constitution which is pro-religion?”Horgan cited Section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867, which protects denominational school rights and privileges, and noted federal charity law recognizes religion as a public good.Horgan said he wasn’t concerned by the pushback, noting judges often ask questions “not so much to get the answers from counsel but to help … persuade other members of the bench on some of the merits of the argument.”In its factum, the CCCB said Bill 21 “turns the expression of religious belief, through the wearing of symbols, into something to be punished because such expression now conflicts with the dominant philosophical posture of laïcité.”Just as religious symbols are an illustration of underlying personal faith, “the prohibition of religious symbols manifests an outlook from the provincial government that denies the divine,” the bishops said.Quebec has argued the notwithstanding clause disqualifies courts from weighing in on matters deemed political debates. Isabelle Brunet, a lawyer for the Quebec government, told the justices: “It is not up to a court to answer a question that doesn’t concern the courts.”Quebec received support from the attorneys general of Alberta, Ontario, and Saskatchewan, who maintain the courts should not interfere once the notwithstanding clause is invoked.Alberta and Ontario take a contrary position, arguing there is nothing in the notwithstanding clause that precludes judicial scrutiny of legislation.Guy J. Pratte, a lawyer for the attorney general of Canada, said Section 33 gives legislatures the power to override Charter rights but does not nullify the rights altogether or prevent judges from issuing an opinion if freedoms are violated.‘Imposing an anti-religious, non-neutral ideology’The following excerpts are from the factum submitted to the Supreme Court of Canada by the Canadian bishops:“The purpose and effect of the act is unilaterally to amend Canada’s federal constitution by imposing an anti-religious, non-neutral ideology, which goes beyond Québec’s jurisdiction.”“When a province makes itself laïc, it is adopting a non-neutral stance on religion. The provinces do not have that power.”“Québec is attempting to impose an atheistic posture on religious believers.”“Our constitution is founded on a political theory that sees fundamental rights and freedoms as God-given. To adopt an expressly anti-religious viewpoint, as the act purports to do, is an amendment of our existing federal constitution.”“In the place of a genuinely neutral, pluralist, and pro-religious approach, the act substitutes an anti-religious constitutional settlement where symbols of religion worn by individuals are not permitted.”“Just as religious symbols manifest an underlying personal faith, the prohibition of religious symbols manifests an outlook … that denies the divine.”This story was first published by The B.C. Catholic and is reprinted here with permission.
Read More

Quebec secularism law is ‘anti-religious ideology,’ bishops tell Canada Supreme Court #Catholic Canada’s bishops told the Supreme Court of Canada that Quebec’s secularism legislation Bill 21 “denies the divine” going well beyond provincial jurisdiction by imposing an anti-religious ideology on the province.The bishops were among more than 50 intervenors presenting arguments at a landmark Supreme Court of Canada hearing into the constitutionality of Quebec’s 2019 secularism law. The hearing, one of the longest in the court’s history, ran from March 23–26. The court reserved its decision, with a ruling expected later this year.The secularism law, which lower courts have twice upheld, prohibits certain public employees — such as teachers and police officers — from wearing religious symbols while at work.Toronto lawyer Phil Horgan, president and general counsel of the Catholic Civil Rights League (CCRL), argued on behalf of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB), summarizing a factum that argued the “purpose and effect” of Quebec’s legislation is to “amend Canada’s federal constitution by imposing an anti-religious, non-neutral ideology, which goes beyond Québec’s jurisdiction.”Such a “drastic” change can only be made by the federal government using its authority over criminal law or its constitutional “peace, order, and good government” powers, according to the bishops’ argument.Quebec preemptively invoked the notwithstanding clause of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms when it drafted Bill 21 to shield it from judicial review.Federal and provincial governments can invoke the notwithstanding clause of the Constitution to temporarily prevent courts from invalidating legislation as unconstitutional.The timing and impact of the use of Charter Section 33 became a significant issue during the four days of hearings and will likely be central in the court’s analysis, Horgan told The Catholic Register.The appellants challenging Bill 21 include individual teachers directly affected by it as well as advocacy groups including the National Council of Canadian Muslims (NCCM), the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA), and the Legal Committee of the Coalition Inclusion Québec. They argue Bill 21 is “ultra vires,” beyond the powers of provincial jurisdiction.In a five-minute oral argument, Horgan told the seven justices that “Canada’s existing federal constitution is pluralist and pro-religion.” Although “the doctrine of state neutrality is well established, Canada has never adopted laicity or an absolutist separation of church and state,” he said.Justice Malcolm Rowe questioned Horgan on the point, asking: “Other than the reference to the supremacy of God in the preamble to the Charter, would you direct me to the provision in the Constitution which is pro-religion?”Horgan cited Section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867, which protects denominational school rights and privileges, and noted federal charity law recognizes religion as a public good.Horgan said he wasn’t concerned by the pushback, noting judges often ask questions “not so much to get the answers from counsel but to help … persuade other members of the bench on some of the merits of the argument.”In its factum, the CCCB said Bill 21 “turns the expression of religious belief, through the wearing of symbols, into something to be punished because such expression now conflicts with the dominant philosophical posture of laïcité.”Just as religious symbols are an illustration of underlying personal faith, “the prohibition of religious symbols manifests an outlook from the provincial government that denies the divine,” the bishops said.Quebec has argued the notwithstanding clause disqualifies courts from weighing in on matters deemed political debates. Isabelle Brunet, a lawyer for the Quebec government, told the justices: “It is not up to a court to answer a question that doesn’t concern the courts.”Quebec received support from the attorneys general of Alberta, Ontario, and Saskatchewan, who maintain the courts should not interfere once the notwithstanding clause is invoked.Alberta and Ontario take a contrary position, arguing there is nothing in the notwithstanding clause that precludes judicial scrutiny of legislation.Guy J. Pratte, a lawyer for the attorney general of Canada, said Section 33 gives legislatures the power to override Charter rights but does not nullify the rights altogether or prevent judges from issuing an opinion if freedoms are violated.‘Imposing an anti-religious, non-neutral ideology’The following excerpts are from the factum submitted to the Supreme Court of Canada by the Canadian bishops:“The purpose and effect of the act is unilaterally to amend Canada’s federal constitution by imposing an anti-religious, non-neutral ideology, which goes beyond Québec’s jurisdiction.”“When a province makes itself laïc, it is adopting a non-neutral stance on religion. The provinces do not have that power.”“Québec is attempting to impose an atheistic posture on religious believers.”“Our constitution is founded on a political theory that sees fundamental rights and freedoms as God-given. To adopt an expressly anti-religious viewpoint, as the act purports to do, is an amendment of our existing federal constitution.”“In the place of a genuinely neutral, pluralist, and pro-religious approach, the act substitutes an anti-religious constitutional settlement where symbols of religion worn by individuals are not permitted.”“Just as religious symbols manifest an underlying personal faith, the prohibition of religious symbols manifests an outlook … that denies the divine.”This story was first published by The B.C. Catholic and is reprinted here with permission.

unitedyam

The Catholic bishops were among more than 50 intervenors presenting arguments at a landmark Supreme Court of Canada hearing into the constitutionality of Quebec’s 2019 secularism law.

Read More