Supreme Court declines to intervene in Catholic bishops donations fraud lawsuit

By Michael Gryboski, Editor Tuesday, May 26, 2026

The Supreme Court has refused to intervene in a lawsuit regarding allegations that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops misled donors about the purposes of an annual donation.

In an order list issued Tuesday morning, the high court declined a petition for a writ of certiorari in the case of USCCB v. David O’Connell, with the order noting that Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson did not take part in the proceedings.

The decline of the petition allows a lower court ruling against USCCB’s effort to use the church autonomy legal argument to dismiss the class action lawsuit to stand.

In January 2020, O’Connell filed a lawsuit against the USCCB over Peter’s Pence, an annual donation that officially goes to the pope to support various charitable endeavors.

O’Connell accused the USCCB of misleading parishioners over the purpose of the donation, claiming that the funds were used for lavish expenses rather than philanthropic projects.  

The USCCB has argued, in part, that it is legally shielded by the church autonomy doctrine, which holds that secular courts cannot regulate how it spends donations.

The Becket Fund, a law firm that focuses on religious liberty cases, agrees with the Catholic bishops and filed a petition to the Supreme Court on behalf of the USCCB.

“The First Amendment ensures churches can decide how to spend offerings, as well as how the Church preaches about such offerings from the pulpit — all without government interference,” stated Becket. 

“If parishioners can claw back a religious offering they voluntarily gave, every religious offering to a house of worship, and every decision made by a faith-based charity, is in jeopardy.”

Americans United for Separation of Church and State, a progressive law firm, filed an amicus brief on behalf of O’Connell in 2024, arguing that the USCCB was not immune from the lawsuit.

“The church-autonomy doctrine does not prevent courts from adjudicating claims under neutral principles of law provided that no religious matters are at issue,” stated Americans United in their brief.

“If USCCB’s view became the constitutional standard, individuals harmed by the tortious or unlawful conduct of a religious institution or clergy member would have no legal recourse any time the wrongdoer asserted that there is some religious element to the case.”

In April of last year, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled against USCCB, with Senior Circuit Judge Henry Edwards, a Carter appointee, authoring the unanimous opinion.

In the opinion, which upheld a lower court ruling against USCCB, Edwards wrote that the church autonomy defense “does not immunize religious organizations from civil actions.”

Edwards rejected the bishops’ request for a collateral order, or an order requesting an appeal of a temporary court order before a final ruling has been made in an underlying case.

“Neither the Supreme Court nor any circuit has ever expanded the collateral order doctrine to categorically cover alleged denials of a church autonomy defense,” Edwards wrote.

“USCCB’s claimed rights can be adequately addressed on appeal after the District Court issues a final decision and, therefore, are not eligible for collateral order appeal.”