Lawsuit

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
Former finance director admits to stealing hundreds of thousands of dollars from New Jersey parish #Catholic The former finance director of a New Jersey parish has pleaded guilty to stealing more than half a million dollars from the church to “fund a lavish lifestyle.”State Attorney General Jennifer Davenportʼs office said in a May 15 press release that Joseph Manzi pleaded guilty to “one count of second-degree theft by unlawful taking and one count of third-degree filing a fraudulent tax return.”The state had charged Manzi in the theft in October 2025 after staffers at St. Leo the Great Parish in Lincroft had discovered “numerous unauthorized charges that were determined to allegedly be for Manzi’s personal benefit.” Manzi had left his position as the parish finance director earlier in the year. In its May 15 release the state said its investigation determined that the 78-year-old Manzi “fraudulently used St. Leo’s credit cards to make unauthorized purchases and payments.” Such purchases included “personal medical and dental payments,” “sports event tickets,” “chartered fishing trips” and a Cadillac SUV. In October 2025 the state had alleged Manzi stole around 0,000, though on May 15 it said its investigation had revealed nearly 5,000 in thefts, while “further investigation identified additional stolen funds.”The state said it was recommending a five-year sentence in New Jersey state prison.Manzi in August 2025 had also been the subject of a separate civil lawsuit by the St. Leo the Great Parish which accused him of stealing more than .5 million from the church. New Jersey said this week that part of Manziʼs plea agreement includes .2 million in restitution to the church.
Read More

Former finance director admits to stealing hundreds of thousands of dollars from New Jersey parish #Catholic The former finance director of a New Jersey parish has pleaded guilty to stealing more than half a million dollars from the church to “fund a lavish lifestyle.”State Attorney General Jennifer Davenportʼs office said in a May 15 press release that Joseph Manzi pleaded guilty to “one count of second-degree theft by unlawful taking and one count of third-degree filing a fraudulent tax return.”The state had charged Manzi in the theft in October 2025 after staffers at St. Leo the Great Parish in Lincroft had discovered “numerous unauthorized charges that were determined to allegedly be for Manzi’s personal benefit.” Manzi had left his position as the parish finance director earlier in the year. In its May 15 release the state said its investigation determined that the 78-year-old Manzi “fraudulently used St. Leo’s credit cards to make unauthorized purchases and payments.” Such purchases included “personal medical and dental payments,” “sports event tickets,” “chartered fishing trips” and a Cadillac SUV. In October 2025 the state had alleged Manzi stole around $500,000, though on May 15 it said its investigation had revealed nearly $675,000 in thefts, while “further investigation identified additional stolen funds.”The state said it was recommending a five-year sentence in New Jersey state prison.Manzi in August 2025 had also been the subject of a separate civil lawsuit by the St. Leo the Great Parish which accused him of stealing more than $1.5 million from the church. New Jersey said this week that part of Manziʼs plea agreement includes $1.2 million in restitution to the church.

unitedyam

Prosecutors had charged Joseph Manzi with the theft in October 2025.

Read More
U.S. Supreme Court allows faith-based pregnancy center to challenge donor subpoena #Catholic The U.S. Supreme Court said a New Jersey faith-based pregnancy center may challenge a state subpoena demanding donor information.The court in a unanimous ruling April 29 decided the case could proceed in federal court, reversing a lower court decision that had deemed the lawsuit premature.The pregnancy center had raised First Amendment concerns about whether it could immediately assert its 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 ruling was a victory for First Choice Women’s Resource Centers. Diverse 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 had agreed that First Choice should be able to challenge the subpoena in federal court without first litigating the issue in New Jersey state court.The case, First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Davenport, involves a 2023 subpoena issued by New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin seeking donor information from First Choice. In 2022, Platkin had begun investigating crisis pregnancy centers like First Choice, saying they are organizations that may provide “false or misleading information about the safety and legality of abortion.”First Choice described itself in a Supreme Court brief as a faith-based nonprofit serving New Jersey women by offering material support and medical services such as ultrasounds and pregnancy tests. The organization said it does not provide or refer for abortions.The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops told the court in an amicus brief: “Compelling disclosure of a religious organization’s financial support violates the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion.”It contended that compelling disclosure would undermine the group’s religious mission and chill the free‑exercise rights of donors who give anonymously in keeping with their beliefs.
Read More

U.S. Supreme Court allows faith-based pregnancy center to challenge donor subpoena #Catholic The U.S. Supreme Court said a New Jersey faith-based pregnancy center may challenge a state subpoena demanding donor information.The court in a unanimous ruling April 29 decided the case could proceed in federal court, reversing a lower court decision that had deemed the lawsuit premature.The pregnancy center had raised First Amendment concerns about whether it could immediately assert its 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 ruling was a victory for First Choice Women’s Resource Centers. Diverse 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 had agreed that First Choice should be able to challenge the subpoena in federal court without first litigating the issue in New Jersey state court.The case, First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Davenport, involves a 2023 subpoena issued by New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin seeking donor information from First Choice. In 2022, Platkin had begun investigating crisis pregnancy centers like First Choice, saying they are organizations that may provide “false or misleading information about the safety and legality of abortion.”First Choice described itself in a Supreme Court brief as a faith-based nonprofit serving New Jersey women by offering material support and medical services such as ultrasounds and pregnancy tests. The organization said it does not provide or refer for abortions.The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops told the court in an amicus brief: “Compelling disclosure of a religious organization’s financial support violates the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion.”It contended that compelling disclosure would undermine the group’s religious mission and chill the free‑exercise rights of donors who give anonymously in keeping with their beliefs.

unitedyam

U.S. bishops had told the court in an amicus brief that compelling disclosure of a religious organization’s financial support violates the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion.

Read More
Federal judge pauses Louisiana telehealth abortion suit pending FDA review #Catholic After the Trump administration appealed, a federal judge put on pause a lawsuit filed by the state of Louisiana that challenges the federal policy of allowing mail-order abortion pills.U.S. District Judge David Joseph in Lafayette, Louisiana, ruled that the challenge be paused pending the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)’s review of the safety of the drug but noted that the state could continue the challenge after the review was completed.Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill filed a lawsuit in late 2025 to challenge the 2023 deregulation of mifepristone, which is used in chemical abortions. The 2023 rule changes, initiated during former president Joe Biden’s administration, allowed the drugs to be delivered through the mail and prescribed without any visits to a doctor.In January of this year, President Donald Trump’s Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a motion with a federal district court to pause the suit, pending a review by the FDA of the chemical abortion drug.Louisiana had filed the lawsuit after residents — including Rosalie Markezich, who is named in the lawsuit — said they were coerced into taking abortion pills that were obtained through the mail. In Markezich’s case, she said her boyfriend forced her to take it.Study: Maternal mortality decreased in states that protect unborn lifeA recent study published by JAMA Network Open found a decrease in maternal mortality in states that protect unborn children from abortions as well as in states with permissive abortion laws.The study considered 22 million births and more than 12,000 pregnancy-related deaths from 2018 to 2023, with 14 states with abortion bans and 37 control jurisdictions.“This cohort study found that abortion bans were not associated with statistically significant overall or state-specific increases in pregnancy-associated mortality,” the study read.In states with strong pro-life laws, on average, maternal mortality rates declined slightly faster than pro-abortion states.Illinois pregnancy centers continue to appeal for conscience rightsA court heard arguments on Friday from Illinois pregnancy centers that are appealing an Illinois district court decision that affirmed a law requiring pregnancy centers to refer women for abortions.The National Institute of Family and Life Advocates and three Illinois pregnancy centers appealed after an April 2025 court ruling found that requiring pregnancy centers to refer pregnant women for an abortion was not a violation of speech and conscience rights.“No one should be forced to express a message that violates their convictions, and compelling people to refer others for abortions does that,” said Alliance Defending Freedom Counsel Erin Hawley. “The U.S. Supreme Court held in NIFLA v. Becerra that forcing people to promote abortion is unconstitutional.”Maryland bill to force hospitals to offer abortions goes to governor’s deskA Maryland bill that would force hospitals to offer abortions, even against their conscience, in some circumstances, heads to the stateʼs governor after the state Legislature passed it this week.The bill would require “a hospital to allow the termination of a pregnancy in certain circumstances” under the federal 1986 Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), which ensures that emergency care is offered regardless of a patient’s ability to pay.The bill would also require a hospital to screen patients for “emergency pregnancy-related medical condition[s]” and to provide “transfer of a patient who has an emergency pregnancy-related medical condition.”“This bill will result in a new government-created loss of valuable highly trained and experienced emergency department physicians, nurses, providers, and staff,” said Dr. James Kelly, representing the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. “The legislation will increase the already existing severe shortages of qualified medical staff and will decrease access to emergency medical care, and endanger the health and safety of patients seeking emergency medical care.”
Read More

Federal judge pauses Louisiana telehealth abortion suit pending FDA review #Catholic After the Trump administration appealed, a federal judge put on pause a lawsuit filed by the state of Louisiana that challenges the federal policy of allowing mail-order abortion pills.U.S. District Judge David Joseph in Lafayette, Louisiana, ruled that the challenge be paused pending the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)’s review of the safety of the drug but noted that the state could continue the challenge after the review was completed.Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill filed a lawsuit in late 2025 to challenge the 2023 deregulation of mifepristone, which is used in chemical abortions. The 2023 rule changes, initiated during former president Joe Biden’s administration, allowed the drugs to be delivered through the mail and prescribed without any visits to a doctor.In January of this year, President Donald Trump’s Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a motion with a federal district court to pause the suit, pending a review by the FDA of the chemical abortion drug.Louisiana had filed the lawsuit after residents — including Rosalie Markezich, who is named in the lawsuit — said they were coerced into taking abortion pills that were obtained through the mail. In Markezich’s case, she said her boyfriend forced her to take it.Study: Maternal mortality decreased in states that protect unborn lifeA recent study published by JAMA Network Open found a decrease in maternal mortality in states that protect unborn children from abortions as well as in states with permissive abortion laws.The study considered 22 million births and more than 12,000 pregnancy-related deaths from 2018 to 2023, with 14 states with abortion bans and 37 control jurisdictions.“This cohort study found that abortion bans were not associated with statistically significant overall or state-specific increases in pregnancy-associated mortality,” the study read.In states with strong pro-life laws, on average, maternal mortality rates declined slightly faster than pro-abortion states.Illinois pregnancy centers continue to appeal for conscience rightsA court heard arguments on Friday from Illinois pregnancy centers that are appealing an Illinois district court decision that affirmed a law requiring pregnancy centers to refer women for abortions.The National Institute of Family and Life Advocates and three Illinois pregnancy centers appealed after an April 2025 court ruling found that requiring pregnancy centers to refer pregnant women for an abortion was not a violation of speech and conscience rights.“No one should be forced to express a message that violates their convictions, and compelling people to refer others for abortions does that,” said Alliance Defending Freedom Counsel Erin Hawley. “The U.S. Supreme Court held in NIFLA v. Becerra that forcing people to promote abortion is unconstitutional.”Maryland bill to force hospitals to offer abortions goes to governor’s deskA Maryland bill that would force hospitals to offer abortions, even against their conscience, in some circumstances, heads to the stateʼs governor after the state Legislature passed it this week.The bill would require “a hospital to allow the termination of a pregnancy in certain circumstances” under the federal 1986 Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), which ensures that emergency care is offered regardless of a patient’s ability to pay.The bill would also require a hospital to screen patients for “emergency pregnancy-related medical condition[s]” and to provide “transfer of a patient who has an emergency pregnancy-related medical condition.”“This bill will result in a new government-created loss of valuable highly trained and experienced emergency department physicians, nurses, providers, and staff,” said Dr. James Kelly, representing the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. “The legislation will increase the already existing severe shortages of qualified medical staff and will decrease access to emergency medical care, and endanger the health and safety of patients seeking emergency medical care.”

unitedyam

A roundup of recent pro-life and abortion-related news.

Read More