U.S. Backs Immunity for Vatican in Case
By ASHBY JONES
The U.S. government has largely sided with the Vatican's argument that a court erred in a closely watched lawsuit alleging sexual abuse by a former priest, a rare foray by Washington into the highly sensitive litigation.
In a filing made Friday, the solicitor general's office urged the Supreme Court to set aside a federal appellate court ruling in a case that had allowed the Oregon suit to go forward against the Vatican. The solicitor general speaks for the government on Supreme Court matters.
The Supreme Court isn't required to follow the government's recommendation, which mostly rested on a technical reading of the law concerning sovereign immunity. But it is often heavily influenced by the judgment of the executive branch in cases that deal with delicate issues, including whether U.S. courts should be allowed to hear cases against foreign officials or nations. The U.S. has recognized the Vatican as a foreign sovereign since 1984.
The lawsuit, Doe v. Holy See, was filed in 2002 on behalf of a man who claimed he was sexually abused by a priest in Oregon in the mid-1960s. The plaintiff named the Holy See as a defendant, in addition to a handful of other parties.
The plaintiff's theory: Since the accused priest had previously been accused of abusing children in Ireland and Chicago, the Vatican should be held accountable for moving the priest to Oregon and continuing to let him serve, where it was conceivable he would continue to abuse. The Oregon case is one of a handful filed against the Vatican directly over sex-abuse claims. Jeffrey Lena, attorney for the Vatican, noted that the plaintiff has not provided evidence that the Vatican moved the priest in question around, or had control over the priest.
Specifically, the solicitor general's office argued in its brief that the Ninth Circuit misapplied the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, a 1976 federal law governing when U.S. courts can hear cases against other countries.
Commenting on the brief, David Bederman, an international-law expert at Emory University School of Law, said that, "the door may still be cracked a bit," for the plaintiff, "but there's not a lot of daylight showing."
Jeffrey Anderson, the lawyer for the plaintiff, called the Solicitor General's brief "a little perplexing," but said he remained heartened that the government didn't recommend more-drastic action, such as dismissing the case altogether.
The case is moving forward in the lower courts against one remaining party; that part of the case isn't under consideration by the Supreme Court. The government's brief also pertains only to the Oregon case and is unlikely to affect others cases filed against the Vatican, including a 2004 case filed in Kentucky.
Write to Ashby Jones at ashby.jones@wsj.com
No comments:
Post a Comment