Arizona Supreme Court Rules When Clergy Must Report Child Abuse
Arizona’s high court upheld a narrow clergy exception for abuse disclosed through qualifying confidential religious communications while limiting courts’ ability to second-guess a religious institution’s interpretation of its own doctrine.
The Arizona Supreme Court ruled July 30 that Arizona clergy may withhold information about child abuse learned through a confession or confidential religious communication when the clergy member determines that nonreporting is reasonable and necessary within the concepts of the member’s religion.
The unanimous decision in Doe v. The Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints affirmed summary judgment for the church defendants in Cochise County Superior Court and vacated a July 29, 2025, Arizona Court of Appeals memorandum decision that had revived the plaintiffs’ lawsuit.
The ruling creates statewide precedent for disputes involving religious counseling, confession and Arizona’s mandatory-reporting law. It does not give all clergy a blanket exemption from reporting suspected child abuse.
What the Arizona Supreme Court decided
The case involved three children who alleged that church officials failed to report their father’s abuse after he disclosed it during meetings with bishops and during a church disciplinary proceeding. The Arizona Supreme Court’s official case summary describes the underlying allegations; the court’s decision addressed the statutory and constitutional questions rather than the factual merits of the abuse claims.
The Cochise County Superior Court granted summary judgment to the church defendants in November 2023. The Court of Appeals later reversed that result, finding factual issues about whether the communications qualified for the clergy exception and whether withholding a report was reasonable and necessary under church doctrine.
The Supreme Court rejected that approach. It held that, absent fraud or collusion for secular purposes, the First Amendment generally prevents a court or jury from deciding whether a religious institution correctly interpreted and applied its own doctrine when determining whether nonreporting was reasonable and necessary.
On the record before it, the Supreme Court concluded that the bishops received the father’s admissions through confessions or confidential communications in the course of the church’s religious discipline. It also accepted their determination that keeping the communications confidential was reasonable and necessary within the concepts of the church’s religion. The court therefore affirmed judgment for the church defendants.
What Arizona’s reporting law says
A.R.S. § 13-3620 generally requires any person who reasonably believes that a minor is or has been the victim of abuse, neglect or certain related offenses to immediately report the information to law enforcement, the Department of Child Safety or, in some circumstances, tribal authorities.
The same subsection contains a limited exception for a member of the clergy, a priest or a Christian Science practitioner who receives a confession or confidential communication in that person’s religious role and in the course of the discipline enjoined by the person’s church. The person may withhold reporting of that communication or confession if the person determines that doing so is reasonable and necessary within the concepts of the religion.
The statute expressly limits the exception to the communication or confession. It does not cover personal observations the clergy member otherwise makes of the minor.
The Supreme Court defined a confession as a confidential acknowledgment or admission of a crime, sin or fault to clergy for the purpose of absolution. It described a confidential communication as speech or correspondence treated as private or made in confidence under circumstances indicating that it was intended only for the people addressed. The court also said religious institutions receive substantial First Amendment deference in deciding whether a communication fits those religious categories and whether it was received in the course of religious discipline.
The court separately explained that the statutory clergy privilege governing testimony in litigation does not itself eliminate the reporting duty. The reporting question is controlled by the exception in subsection (A), subject to its conditions.
What the ruling means for residents
People who disclose information to clergy should not assume that every conversation is legally confidential. Whether the exception applies depends on the nature of the communication, the clergy member’s role, the religious setting and the institution’s own understanding of its religious discipline.
The ruling also distinguishes between a clergy member’s religious determination and a court’s independent assessment of whether abuse occurred. The Supreme Court did not hold that abuse allegations are immune from investigation or that religious organizations are generally exempt from secular laws.
Outside the narrow statutory exception, Arizona’s immediate-reporting rule remains in effect. The decision did not change the reporting duties of teachers, health-care workers, law enforcement officers or other mandated reporters.
What happens next
The decision resolves the current appellate dispute over the church defendants’ summary judgment in this case. It gives lower courts a framework for future cases involving confidential religious communications, religious discipline and child-abuse reporting.
Future disputes may still involve whether a communication was actually confidential, whether it was received in the course of religious discipline, whether the person qualified as clergy under the institution’s religious understanding, or whether evidence supports a narrow inquiry into fraud or collusion for secular purposes. The Supreme Court said courts may still apply neutral principles of law and investigate those limited issues without deciding what a religious doctrine means.
The issue has also appeared in Arizona legislative debates. KJZZ reported in November 2023 that a proposal to require clergy to report ongoing child abuse learned in a confessional setting was blocked in committee. The Supreme Court’s July 30, 2026, ruling clarifies the law as it exists now; any broader change would require legislative action or a later legal development.
Sources
- Arizona Supreme Court opinion in Doe v. The Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
- Arizona mandatory-reporting law, A.R.S. § 13-3620
- KJZZ: Arizona lawmaker wants clergy to report abuse learned during confessionals
Discover more from Interactive News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
