Catholic Church loses key battle to keep state probe of clergy sex abuse secret
The New Jersey Supreme Court unsealed court records in a dispute with the Camden diocese over whether a state grand jury can issue a presentment on sex abuse claims. (Getty Images)
After a Pennsylvania grand jury in 2018 found hundreds of Catholic priests had sexually abused at least 1,000 children over seven decades, New Jersey's then-Attorney General Gurbir Grewal launched an investigation of allegations of sexual abuse by members of the clergy within Catholic dioceses here.
Prosecutors wanted a grand jury empaneled to consider evidence in the case, but Camden's diocesan leaders successfully squashed it, persuading trial and appellate judges that a state grand jury had no authority to issue a presentment against a private religious entity — and that all court records in the matter should be sealed.
Wednesday, the state snagged a win in the long-fought battle, when the New Jersey Supreme Court ordered the records to be unsealed and agreed to hear arguments in the case next month.
The decision clears the path for prosecutors to potentially bring the case to a grand jury — if justices agree with the state's argument that grand juries are constitutionally permitted to issue presentments on matters 'of public affairs or conditions,' and clergy abuse qualifies as such. A presentment is a written accusation of a crime prepared by a grand jury. Arguments are expected to be held during the court's April 28-29 session.
First Assistant Attorney General Lyndsay Ruotolo said the clergy abuse task force Grewal created 'has never wavered' in its mission, and prosecutors remain committed to bringing charges when warranted and proceeding with a grand jury presentment.
'For years, we have been seeking to convene a grand jury to present evidence collected by prosecutors across the state regarding decades of sexual abuse, the conditions that made that abuse possible, and the systematic failures to prevent it — and to allow the grand jury, as the conscience of our community, to make recommendations to ensure widespread abuse by clergy can never happen again,' Ruotolo said in a statement.
She said she's grateful the state Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
'Now that this case has been made public for the first time in this years-long dispute, victims and survivors will have an opportunity to make their voices heard — and to speak to the real harms that we have never lost sight of,' she said.
A spokesman for the Camden diocese and attorney Lloyd D. Levenson, who represents the diocese, did not respond to requests for comment. James King, executive director of the New Jersey Catholic Conference, declined to comment.
In the unsealed briefs, prosecutors argued that trial and appellate judges erred both in entertaining a challenge to a hypothetical grand jury presentment that does not yet exist and in barring a presentment that focuses on the conduct of private individuals.
'Statewide sexual abuse by clergy, and the State's failure to prevent it, have had a tremendous impact on the public,' prosecutors wrote. 'The grand jury's presentment power is a tool to voice the public conscience, to learn from past harms, and to propose reforms.'
The lower courts' rulings 'preclude the use of that tool to address one of the most wrenching harms in recent memory,' they added.
But the Camden diocese argued that a presentment is unnecessary because abuse victims can get relief through civil lawsuits. Levenson also accused the state of having an 'ulterior motive … to mitigate the public relations debacle it created' by promising in press releases in 2019 that a presentment would be forthcoming.
'A grand jury is not authorized to return a presentment against the Roman Catholic Church relating to decades-old allegations of clergy abuse. A grand jury may only return a presentment that refers to public affairs or conditions which are imminent and pertinent,' Levenson wrote. 'The internal operations of the Catholic Church from long ago are not public affairs or conditions, are not imminent and pertinent, and thus are not an appropriate subject matter of a presentment.'
Despite being blocked from presenting the case to a grand jury, the state task force has continued its investigation, fielding more than 550 calls on a 24-hour hotline alleging sexual, physical, and mental abuse by clergy, according to the briefs. At least four clergy have been arrested, according to the briefs.
Mark Crawford, the New Jersey director of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP), said he's thrilled the Supreme Court unsealed the court records and plans to attend the arguments.
'The victims here have a right to know what's been going on after six dark years of silence,' Crawford said. 'Look, the Camden bishop's actions did not just impact the victims of the Camden diocese, but every victim in this state. The other Catholic dioceses all stood by in silence and said nothing — nothing! — when they knew that these items were being litigated in court to prevent the presentment by a grand jury.'
He called the Camden diocese's actions to stifle the state investigation 'the same old playbook.'
'It's 'let's suppress what we know, prevent it from getting to the public' while publicly saying 'we're going to cooperate, we're going to be open and transparent,'' Crawford said. 'What does that say about their care or compassion for the victims, who simply want to be validated, who want a voice, who want their stories told, who want to be heard?'
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Southern Baptists endorse overturning same-sex marriage
Southern Baptist delegates overwhelmingly called to try to reinstitute a ban on same-sex marriage 10 years after the Supreme Court legalized the unions. While gathered at the 2025 national convention in Dallas on Tuesday, the delegates of the country's leading Protestant denomination voiced their goal of changing national policy on same-sex marriage. Southern Baptists have long been opposed to same-sex marriage, but the call this week for the Supreme Court to reverse its 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges ruling has strategists questioning if it was influenced by the 2022 reversal of Roe v. Wade, which was the constitutionally protected right to an abortion. The convention attracted thousands of pastors and church members from congregations across the country. The vote took place on the first day of the meeting, which gave a glimpse into the denomination's view on a number of political and cultural issues, The New York Times reported. The vote comes just after Gallup released survey results about a widening gap between Republicans and Democrats about their support for same-sex marriage. According to the polling, 68% of U.S. adults support same-sex marriage. Democrats' support has risen to 88% in 2025, while Republican support has dropped to 41%, the lowest since 2017. Southern Baptists acknowledged that their support for making same-sex marriage illegal puts them in the minority, but they say the nonbinding resolution puts their views on the map. While the support for overturning Obergefell may not be a strong sentiment nationwide, the Southern Baptist enthusiasm could lead to political efforts to change the law, as seen in recent years with the support and eventual reversal of Roe. Several other resolutions and ideas were passed by delegates, including defunding Planned Parenthood, banning pornography and condemning sports betting. Southern Baptist Convention Resolution Committee Chair Dr. Andrew Walker acknowledged they have an uphill battle to finding broader support for the resolution, but he would 'love to see Obergefell overturned' and a marriage definition in the U.S. 'restored to the union of one man and one woman.' 'There is very little desire, even on the conservative side, I think, to go to bat for marriage in this particular culture. And I want to stress to the press, while we are making a policy and legal statement, I'm clear eyed about the difficulties and the headwinds in this resolution,' Walker said during a press conference. Walter said the resolutions passed by the delegates were statements that can and will inform the way policymakers view Southern Baptist sentiment and desires. The Times noted that Southern Baptist values are often viewed as a bellwether for evangelical conservatism. 'I understand that it is largely ingrained in the American psyche at this point,' Walker said of same-sex marriage. 'But the role of this resolution was to say Southern Baptists aren't going anywhere.'
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Wisconsin group sues Elon Musk, alleging million-dollar check giveaways were voter bribes
A Wisconsin watchdog group has filed a lawsuit against Elon Musk claiming that he unlawfully bribed voters with million-dollar checks and $100 giveaways in the state's latest Supreme Court election. Wisconsin Democracy Campaign — a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that investigates election transparency — along with two Wisconsin voters, filed the suit against Musk, his super PAC America PAC and another Musk-owned entity called the United States of America Inc. In the suit, the plaintiffs claimed that Musk and his entities violated state laws that prohibit vote bribery and unauthorized lotteries. It also accuses Musk of conducting civil conspiracy and acting as a public nuisance. Musk and America PAC did not respond to a request for comment. 'In the context of an election for Wisconsin's highest court, election bribery—providing more than $1 to induce electors (that is, voters) to vote— undermines voters' faith in the validity of the electoral system and the independence of the judiciary,' the suit reads. The complaint alleges that Musk violated state laws in giving away $100 to voters who signed a petition 'in opposition to activist judges' and handing out million-dollar checks to those who signed the petition. The suit says that those who had won the checks had voted for candidate Brad Schimel. At a town hall in Green Bay, Musk gave away million-dollar checks to two people, both of whom the suit claims voted for Schimel. In a video America PAC posted on X, one of the winners said he had voted for Schimel and encouraged others to do the same. 'Everyone needs to do what I just did, sign the petition, refer your friends, and go out to vote for Brad Schimel,' the winner, Nicholas Jacobs, said in the video. The suit mentions that Musk had said the $1 million awards would be given 'in appreciation' for those 'taking the time to vote.' Despite Musk's America PAC spending over $12 million on Schimel's campaign, candidate Susan Crawford won the race. Before the race had been called, Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul filed a similar lawsuit against Musk over his involvement in the state Supreme Court election, but a county judge declined to immediately hold a hearing. A Pennsylvania judge similarly declined a request to block Musk's million-dollar giveaways in the state. During the presidential election, Musk's America PAC had also given out million-dollar checks to people registered to vote in swing states, which the Justice Department had warned could be illegal. Musk defended his giveaways during the presidential election despite the allegations of unlawfulness by saying that those who signed the petition weren't given the money as a prize and that chance 'was not involved here.' Those who signed the petition were instead America PAC spokespeople with the 'opportunity to earn' $1 million. 'Make no mistake: an eligible voter's opportunity to earn is not the same thing as a chance to win,' Musk said, according to Reuters. Jeff Mandell, the co-founder of Law Forward — the law firm that filed the suit on behalf of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign — said in an interview with NBC News that this lawsuit has the advantage of additional time. 'The election is over. Some passions have cooled, and we are bringing this in a normal posture, asking the court to go through its normal procedure,' Mandell said. 'We are confident that we'll get a complete and fair adjudication.' The Wisconsin Democracy Campaign's lawsuit also seeks to bar Musk from 'replicating any such unlawful conduct in relation to future Wisconsin elections.' 'Almost everyone who was watching closely or saw what was happening here in Wisconsin in that very tight period was pretty horrified, and would say things like, 'Well, this can't possibly be legal,' or, 'He can't possibly get away with this,'' Mandell said. 'That's really the purpose of this lawsuit, is to make sure that a court does say — in accord with both the law and I think people across the political spectrum's intuition — that this is not legal conduct, this is not consistent with how our democracy works, and to make sure it doesn't happen again.' This article was originally published on
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Majority on Brazil court in favor of tougher social media rules
Brazil's Supreme Court reached a majority Wednesday in favor of toughening social media regulation, in a groundbreaking case for Latin America on the spread of fake news and hate speech. The South American country's highest court is seeking to determine to what extent companies such as X, TikTok, Instagram and Facebook are responsible for removing illegal content, and how they can be sanctioned if they do not. The judges' final ruling will create a precedent that will affect tens of millions of social media users in Brazil. At issue is a clause in the country's so-called Civil Framework for the Internet, a law in effect since 2014, that says platforms are only responsible for harm caused by a post if they ignore a judge's order to remove it. By Wednesday, six of the court's 11 judges had ruled in favor of higher accountability, meaning sites should monitor content and remove problematic posts on their own initiative, without court intervention. One judge has voted against tougher regulation, and three have yet to express an opinion. Alexandre de Moraes, one of 11 judges of the court, has repeatedly clashed with X owner Elon Musk and various right-wing personalities over social media posts. The review is taking place in parallel with the Supreme Court trial of far-right former president Jair Bolsonaro, who is alleged to have collaborated on a coup plot to remain in power after his 2022 election defeat. Prosecutors say Bolsonaro's followers used social media to lie about the reliability of the electoral system and plot the downfall of successor Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. Last year, Moraes blocked X for 40 days for failing to comply with a series of court orders against online disinformation. He had previously ordered X to suspend the accounts of several Bolsonaro supporters. Musk and other critics say Moraes is stifling free speech, and US President Donald Trump's administration is weighing sanctions against the judge, whom Bolsonaro accuses of judicial "persecution." Lula, who emerged the victor in a tightly-fought election against Bolsonaro in 2022, is advocating for "accelerating regulation" of online platforms. ffb/ll/dga/mlr/des