![Human dignity, national security ‘not in conflict,’ U.S. bishops say amid Trump ‘aliens’ campaign #Catholic The U.S. bishops are reiterating their calls for immigrants in the U.S. to be treated with dignity as the Trump administration launched a campaign that likens immigrants living in the country illegally to extraterrestrials.The White House on May 28 launched a government website “Aliens.gov,” a retro sci-fi-styled site that claims the government has “kept a closely guarded secret” about “aliens” and an “invasion” for decades. The site mimics sci‑fi aesthetics, with a bold, geometric sans‑serif typeface in neon green and black, like 1950s movie posters used to advertise Cold‑War‑era sci‑fi films featuring monstrous extraterrestrials.“Aliens have been walking among us, living in our neighborhoods, and interacting with us in our daily lives,” the site claims, alleging that “aliens” have “shopped in the same stores, attended the same classes as our children, and lived seemingly normal human existences.”Promoting an “alien arrest map” of immigrant detentions around the country, the site states bluntly that people without legal status “do not belong here.”The website urges visitors to “report suspicious aliens” to an “ICE tip line.” In U.S. law, the word alien is a formal legal classification meaning a person who is not a U.S. citizen or national, a definition that appears in the Immigration and Nationality Act and is used in statutes, regulations, and court decisions.Dignity, national security ‘not in conflict,’ bishops saysImmigrants have long been portrayed through metaphors in U.S. culture, from 19th‑century political cartoons that depicted Irish, Italian, and Chinese newcomers as monsters or subhuman creatures to modern rhetoric framing migrant groups as “invaders,” “infestations,” or something other than fully human.The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) lamented “the state of contemporary debate and the vilification of immigrants” in a special message in November 2025. In February, the bishops condemned a plan from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to increase the capacity of migrant detention centers around the U.S. The government earlier this year indicated it would spend about $38 billion to bolster detention space. Victoria, Texas Bishop Brendan Cahill, chair of the bishops' immigration committee, called the plans “deeply troubling” at the time.“The thought of holding thousands of families in massive warehouses should challenge the conscience of every American," the bishop said. Asked about the governmentʼs new “aliens” campaign on May 29, USCCB spokeswoman Chieko Noguchi told EWTN News that the bishops have “continuously condemned vilification of immigrants and dehumanizing rhetoric and consistently advocated for a meaningful reform of our nation’s immigration laws and procedures.” “They’ve also repeatedly asserted that human dignity and national security are not in conflict,” she said, pointing to the bishops' special message. The bishops at that time said they “oppose[d] the indiscriminate mass deportation of people,” with the prelates praying “for an end to dehumanizing rhetoric and violence, whether directed at immigrants or at law enforcement.”The bishops in February urged the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold the U.S. constitutional policy of “birthright citizenship” wherein any individual born on U.S. soil is counted as an American citizen. The dispute before the court was launched after Trump in January 2025 signed an order directing that children born to parents in the country illegally were not entitled to U.S. citizenship. Pope Leo XIV — the first pope in history from the United States — has also weighed in, affirming in November 2025 that while nations have “a right to determine who and how and when people enter,” countries “have to look for ways of treating people humanely, treating people with the dignity that they have.”“When people are living good lives — and many of them (in the United States) for 10, 15, 20 years — to treat them in a way that is extremely disrespectful, to say the least,” is not acceptable, the pope said on Nov. 18, 2025.Regarding the bishops' Nov. 12, 2025 message on immigration, the pope remarked: “I appreciate very much what the bishops have said. I think it’s a very important statement. I would invite, especially all Catholics, but people of goodwill to listen carefully to what they said."In a statement to EWTN News, meanwhile, a spokesperson for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security on May 29 argued that news reports “too often” ignore “the victims [of illegal immigration] and their stories.” "These victims and their families are why we work around the clock to arrest and deport illegal aliens from our communities," the department said, describing crimes committed by undocumented immigrants as "completely preventable.”“What makes someone a target of ICE is if they are in the U.S. illegally,” the statement continued, arguing that “nearly 70% of ICE arrests are of criminal illegal aliens who have been convicted or have pending charges.”ICE data shows most people arrested and booked into ICE custody do not have criminal convictions, and some analyses show the 70% figure comes from redefining “criminal” to include pending charges, foreign allegations untested in a U.S. court, and people who have never been found guilty of a crime. Roughly 25–30% of people arrested by ICE have a prior conviction, according to analyses of ICE arrest and detention data, including work by the Cato Institute and the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse based on ICE data.](https://unitedyam.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/human-dignity-national-security-not-in-conflict-u-s-bishops-say-amid-trump-aliens-campaign-catholic-the-u-s-bishops-are-reiterating-their-calls-for-immigrants-in-the-u-s-to-be-treated-wi.jpg "Human dignity, national security ‘not in conflict,’ U.S. bishops say amid Trump ‘aliens’ campaign #Catholic The U.S. bishops are reiterating their calls for immigrants in the U.S. to be treated with dignity as the Trump administration launched a campaign that likens immigrants living in the country illegally to extraterrestrials.The White House on May 28 launched a government website “Aliens.gov,” a retro sci-fi-styled site that claims the government has “kept a closely guarded secret” about “aliens” and an “invasion” for decades. The site mimics sci‑fi aesthetics, with a bold, geometric sans‑serif typeface in neon green and black, like 1950s movie posters used to advertise Cold‑War‑era sci‑fi films featuring monstrous extraterrestrials.“Aliens have been walking among us, living in our neighborhoods, and interacting with us in our daily lives,” the site claims, alleging that “aliens” have “shopped in the same stores, attended the same classes as our children, and lived seemingly normal human existences.”Promoting an “alien arrest map” of immigrant detentions around the country, the site states bluntly that people without legal status “do not belong here.”The website urges visitors to “report suspicious aliens” to an “ICE tip line.” In U.S. law, the word alien is a formal legal classification meaning a person who is not a U.S. citizen or national, a definition that appears in the Immigration and Nationality Act and is used in statutes, regulations, and court decisions.Dignity, national security ‘not in conflict,’ bishops saysImmigrants have long been portrayed through metaphors in U.S. culture, from 19th‑century political cartoons that depicted Irish, Italian, and Chinese newcomers as monsters or subhuman creatures to modern rhetoric framing migrant groups as “invaders,” “infestations,” or something other than fully human.The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) lamented “the state of contemporary debate and the vilification of immigrants” in a special message in November 2025. In February, the bishops condemned a plan from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to increase the capacity of migrant detention centers around the U.S. The government earlier this year indicated it would spend about $38 billion to bolster detention space. Victoria, Texas Bishop Brendan Cahill, chair of the bishops' immigration committee, called the plans “deeply troubling” at the time.“The thought of holding thousands of families in massive warehouses should challenge the conscience of every American,\" the bishop said. Asked about the governmentʼs new “aliens” campaign on May 29, USCCB spokeswoman Chieko Noguchi told EWTN News that the bishops have “continuously condemned vilification of immigrants and dehumanizing rhetoric and consistently advocated for a meaningful reform of our nation’s immigration laws and procedures.” “They’ve also repeatedly asserted that human dignity and national security are not in conflict,” she said, pointing to the bishops' special message. The bishops at that time said they “oppose[d] the indiscriminate mass deportation of people,” with the prelates praying “for an end to dehumanizing rhetoric and violence, whether directed at immigrants or at law enforcement.”The bishops in February urged the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold the U.S. constitutional policy of “birthright citizenship” wherein any individual born on U.S. soil is counted as an American citizen. The dispute before the court was launched after Trump in January 2025 signed an order directing that children born to parents in the country illegally were not entitled to U.S. citizenship. Pope Leo XIV — the first pope in history from the United States — has also weighed in, affirming in November 2025 that while nations have “a right to determine who and how and when people enter,” countries “have to look for ways of treating people humanely, treating people with the dignity that they have.”“When people are living good lives — and many of them (in the United States) for 10, 15, 20 years — to treat them in a way that is extremely disrespectful, to say the least,” is not acceptable, the pope said on Nov. 18, 2025.Regarding the bishops' Nov. 12, 2025 message on immigration, the pope remarked: “I appreciate very much what the bishops have said. I think it’s a very important statement. I would invite, especially all Catholics, but people of goodwill to listen carefully to what they said.\"In a statement to EWTN News, meanwhile, a spokesperson for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security on May 29 argued that news reports “too often” ignore “the victims [of illegal immigration] and their stories.” \"These victims and their families are why we work around the clock to arrest and deport illegal aliens from our communities,\" the department said, describing crimes committed by undocumented immigrants as \"completely preventable.”“What makes someone a target of ICE is if they are in the U.S. illegally,” the statement continued, arguing that “nearly 70% of ICE arrests are of criminal illegal aliens who have been convicted or have pending charges.”ICE data shows most people arrested and booked into ICE custody do not have criminal convictions, and some analyses show the 70% figure comes from redefining “criminal” to include pending charges, foreign allegations untested in a U.S. court, and people who have never been found guilty of a crime. Roughly 25–30% of people arrested by ICE have a prior conviction, according to analyses of ICE arrest and detention data, including work by the Cato Institute and the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse based on ICE data.")
The Trump administration launched an “alien arrest map” with images and rhetoric that likens immigrants living illegally in the country to extraterrestrials.
![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.](https://unitedyam.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/supreme-court-declines-to-intervene-in-federal-lawsuit-over-peters-pence-papal-collection-catholic-the-u-s-bishops-will-continue-to-face-a-lawsuit-over-millions-of-dollars-in-contested-papa.png "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.")
The lawsuit will continue in the federal courts after the Supreme Court refused to consider a religious liberty objection by the U.S. bishops.
The court has previously held that people with intellectual disabilities may not be executed under the U.S. Constitution.
![Indian Catholics denied bail after confronting mob that disrupted Mass #Catholic UDAIPUR, India — Nine Catholics have been behind bars for more than two weeks after parishioners chased out more than a dozen people who barged into a village church during Mass, shouting accusations of conversion, in a remote village in Indiaʼs desert state of Rajasthan.“We feel frustrated that our people were denied bail a second time today on the false allegation of conversion,” Bishop Devprasad John Ganawa of Udaipur, a Divine Word missionary, told EWTN News on May 12.“When the hooligans disrupted the Mass on May 1 shouting ‘conversion,’ our people forced them out. Instead of registering a criminal case against the intruders, the police have charged our people with ‘conversion and attempt to murder’ and arrested nine Catholics of Bandaria Parish,” Ganawa explained.‘They took out a knife’“I was saying the evening Mass at the substation of my parish at Kalinjara village when the incident happened,” Father Arvind Amliyar recounted to EWTN News.“During the Communion time over a dozen people stormed into the church, shouted ‘conversion,’ and started filming with cameras. When one of them took out a knife, our people snatched it and chased them out,” Amliyar said.“Soon police came and what happened then shocked me. Instead of finding out what had happened, they arrested four Catholics the same night,” the priest said.A Hindu mob then staged a protest outside the police station and demanded action against the parishioners, according to Amliyar. Police turned away Catholics who went to them twice, including at midnight the same day and the next day, refusing to register their complaint.Police came knocking on May 4 at 2:30 a.m. and arrested five more parishioners, including Anil Rawat, 70, a retired headmaster of a government school who now runs a private school in the village.Bail denied twiceThe local magistrate court rejected the parishioners' bail application the next day, as they were charged with “serious crimes”: conversion and attempted murder. Church lawyers then moved the case to the Banswara district court, which denied bail again on May 12.“Now, we have to go to the High Court with senior lawyers,” Amliyar said of the challenging situation facing the village church, which serves about 70 Catholic families. About 70 people were attending Mass when the intruders stormed in.“I cannot understand what is going on. The police bluntly refused to register the complaint of our people and have filed a serious charge of conversion against our people and imprisoned them,” Ganawa said of the first case of alleged conversion in Udaipur Diocese, where he has served as bishop for 13 years.Anti-conversion laws ‘reduced to a tool to harass minorities’“This is another typical case of the widespread abuse of anti-conversion laws against Christians in several states, most of them ruled by the BJP [Bharatiya Janata Party],” A.C. Michael, a Catholic and national coordinator of the United Christian Forum, which monitors atrocities against Christians, told EWTN News from New Delhi.Under the Indian criminal system, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution. However, under recently enacted or amended anti-conversion laws, Michael said, the burden of disproving the charge of conversion is shifted to the accused, making it difficult for defendants to secure bail from trial courts quickly, even in fraudulent cases.Under the Rajasthan Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, enacted in 2025, the burden of disproving the allegation of conversion falls on the accused.As a result, Michael said, hundreds of Christians are languishing in jails in BJP-ruled states while protracted legal challenges drag on in higher courts.“The shocking reality is that there has been hardly any conviction in so-called conversion cases. That is why the churches and Christian groups have moved the Supreme Court for abolishing the anti-conversion laws that have been reduced to a tool to harass minorities,” Michael said.He noted that the Supreme Court in May 2024 observed that certain provisions in anti-conversion laws may be in violation of Article 25 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate oneʼs religion.The Feb. 4–10 biennial assembly of more than 200 bishops in India in Bangalore also reiterated this concern in its final statement: “As many innocent individuals are incarcerated based on unfounded allegations of forceful religious conversions, we strongly demand the repealing of legislations which are inconsistent with religious freedom and right to privacy.”](https://unitedyam.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/indian-catholics-denied-bail-after-confronting-mob-that-disrupted-mass-catholic-udaipur-india-nine-catholics-have-been-behind-bars-for-more-than-two-weeks-after-parishioners-chased-out-mor-scaled.jpg "Indian Catholics denied bail after confronting mob that disrupted Mass #Catholic UDAIPUR, India — Nine Catholics have been behind bars for more than two weeks after parishioners chased out more than a dozen people who barged into a village church during Mass, shouting accusations of conversion, in a remote village in Indiaʼs desert state of Rajasthan.“We feel frustrated that our people were denied bail a second time today on the false allegation of conversion,” Bishop Devprasad John Ganawa of Udaipur, a Divine Word missionary, told EWTN News on May 12.“When the hooligans disrupted the Mass on May 1 shouting ‘conversion,’ our people forced them out. Instead of registering a criminal case against the intruders, the police have charged our people with ‘conversion and attempt to murder’ and arrested nine Catholics of Bandaria Parish,” Ganawa explained.‘They took out a knife’“I was saying the evening Mass at the substation of my parish at Kalinjara village when the incident happened,” Father Arvind Amliyar recounted to EWTN News.“During the Communion time over a dozen people stormed into the church, shouted ‘conversion,’ and started filming with cameras. When one of them took out a knife, our people snatched it and chased them out,” Amliyar said.“Soon police came and what happened then shocked me. Instead of finding out what had happened, they arrested four Catholics the same night,” the priest said.A Hindu mob then staged a protest outside the police station and demanded action against the parishioners, according to Amliyar. Police turned away Catholics who went to them twice, including at midnight the same day and the next day, refusing to register their complaint.Police came knocking on May 4 at 2:30 a.m. and arrested five more parishioners, including Anil Rawat, 70, a retired headmaster of a government school who now runs a private school in the village.Bail denied twiceThe local magistrate court rejected the parishioners' bail application the next day, as they were charged with “serious crimes”: conversion and attempted murder. Church lawyers then moved the case to the Banswara district court, which denied bail again on May 12.“Now, we have to go to the High Court with senior lawyers,” Amliyar said of the challenging situation facing the village church, which serves about 70 Catholic families. About 70 people were attending Mass when the intruders stormed in.“I cannot understand what is going on. The police bluntly refused to register the complaint of our people and have filed a serious charge of conversion against our people and imprisoned them,” Ganawa said of the first case of alleged conversion in Udaipur Diocese, where he has served as bishop for 13 years.Anti-conversion laws ‘reduced to a tool to harass minorities’“This is another typical case of the widespread abuse of anti-conversion laws against Christians in several states, most of them ruled by the BJP [Bharatiya Janata Party],” A.C. Michael, a Catholic and national coordinator of the United Christian Forum, which monitors atrocities against Christians, told EWTN News from New Delhi.Under the Indian criminal system, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution. However, under recently enacted or amended anti-conversion laws, Michael said, the burden of disproving the charge of conversion is shifted to the accused, making it difficult for defendants to secure bail from trial courts quickly, even in fraudulent cases.Under the Rajasthan Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, enacted in 2025, the burden of disproving the allegation of conversion falls on the accused.As a result, Michael said, hundreds of Christians are languishing in jails in BJP-ruled states while protracted legal challenges drag on in higher courts.“The shocking reality is that there has been hardly any conviction in so-called conversion cases. That is why the churches and Christian groups have moved the Supreme Court for abolishing the anti-conversion laws that have been reduced to a tool to harass minorities,” Michael said.He noted that the Supreme Court in May 2024 observed that certain provisions in anti-conversion laws may be in violation of Article 25 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate oneʼs religion.The Feb. 4–10 biennial assembly of more than 200 bishops in India in Bangalore also reiterated this concern in its final statement: “As many innocent individuals are incarcerated based on unfounded allegations of forceful religious conversions, we strongly demand the repealing of legislations which are inconsistent with religious freedom and right to privacy.”")
Nine parishioners face conversion and attempted murder charges after forcing out intruders who stormed a village church during Mass in Rajasthan.
![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.](https://unitedyam.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/catholics-weigh-in-as-supreme-court-faces-deadline-on-telemedicine-abortion-ruling-catholic-the-u-s-supreme-courts-stay-on-the-5th-circuits-ruling-restricting-access-to-telemedicin-scaled.jpg "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.")
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.
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.
![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.”](https://unitedyam.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/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-scaled.jpg "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.”")
“Uncharged individuals” may not be exposed to the “court of public opinion” in grand jury documents, the state high court ruled.
