Blecher v. The Holy See

Background

Thirty alleged victims of childhood clergy sexual abuse filed a proposed class action against the Holy See. They alleged that local priests or deacons associated with several New York dioceses abused them during the 1960s through the 1990s. The plaintiffs asserted one negligence claim, alleging that the Holy See required secrecy in responding to allegations of child sexual abuse and that this policy caused failures to warn children and parents and to report abusers to law enforcement and others.

The Holy See moved to dismiss under several provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It argued that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, that the plaintiffs lacked standing, that the complaint failed to state a claim, and that venue was improper for 19 named plaintiffs.

Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act

The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act generally protects foreign states from jurisdiction in United States courts unless a statutory exception applies. The plaintiffs relied on the Act’s exception for certain personal-injury or death claims caused in the United States by a foreign state or its officials or employees acting within the scope of their employment.

The court first held that the New York dioceses and archdiocese were separate corporations and that the plaintiffs had not alleged enough day-to-day control by the Holy See to overcome the presumption that those entities had separate legal status. The court also rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the Act’s exception should cover conduct by agents because the statute refers to officials and employees but does not refer to agents.

The court separately considered the plaintiffs’ allegation that the bishops were employees or officials of the Holy See. It held that the doctrine of limited liability did not categorically prevent bishops from being Holy See employees. Applying New York law, the court concluded that the plaintiffs had plausibly alleged an employment relationship based on the Holy See’s alleged right of control. The court also concluded that the alleged local implementation of the policy satisfied the requirement that the tort occur in the United States, and that the complaint adequately alleged a causal connection between the policy and the injuries.

Discretionary Function Exclusion

The court then applied the Act’s discretionary-function exclusion. That exclusion removes jurisdiction over claims based on a discretionary function, even if the discretion was abused. The court used a two-part test: whether the conduct involved judgment or choice, and whether the conduct was the type of decision the exclusion was designed to protect.

The court held that both parts of the test were satisfied. The complaint did not allege that the Holy See employees’ decisions about warning, disclosure, or reporting were nondiscretionary. The court determined that creating and following a policy involved judgment or choice, and that decisions about whether to warn about a person’s dangerous behavior or restrict that person’s contact with children were the type of policy-based decisions protected by the exclusion.

Disposition

Because the discretionary-function exclusion applied, the court held that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. The court granted the Holy See’s motion to dismiss and dismissed the amended complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. It directed the Clerk to enter final judgment for the Holy See and close the case. The court declined to address the Holy See’s remaining arguments. The court also stated that a separate motion at Docket Number 61 was denied as moot.