Case: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops v. David O'Connell, No. 25-849
Lower Court: District of Columbia
Docketed: 2026-01-15
Status: Pending
Question Presented: For over 1,000 years, Catholics have given an annual offering to the Pope called Peter’s Pence. A parishoner claims he was misled during Mass by an invitation from the pulpit that imprecisely described the Pope’s use of Peter’s Pence. He sued the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, seeking discovery into the donors to, uses of, and internal deliberations about Peter’s Pence. He requests an injunction restraining how the Church describes and uses the offering, and a refund for himself and a clas...
On January 23, 2026, a coalition including the Christian Legal Society, Thomas More Society, and the National Association of Evangelicals filed an amicus brief supporting the Bishops’ petition. The Supreme Court docket shows three amicus submissions in total, reflecting broad interest at the certiorari stage.
The underlying dispute began when parishioner David O’Connell alleged that a pulpit solicitation for Peter’s Pence misrepresented how the Pope would use the funds. He filed suit seeking class-wide relief, including discovery into internal Church deliberations and an injunction governing future descriptions of the offering. The Bishops moved to dismiss on church autonomy grounds. The district court refused, applying the “neutral principles” approach developed in church property disputes. The D.C. Circuit then dismissed the Bishops’ interlocutory appeal, holding that church autonomy is a defense against liability rather than a structural bar to suit.
The petition raises three distinct questions: whether church autonomy limits state power structurally, not merely as a liability defense; whether denial of that defense is immediately appealable; and whether “neutral principles” analysis extends beyond property disputes to internal religious practices like charitable solicitation. The Court’s decision to request a response after the respondent initially waived one suggests at least some interest in the petition. More information on the case is available through SCOTUSBlog.
If the Court grants certiorari, the structural immunity question could affect how lower courts handle a wide range of suits touching internal church governance. The immediate appealability question also carries independent significance, as it would determine when religious institutions can seek appellate review before enduring the burdens of discovery into their internal affairs.