TRENTON (NJ)
The Record [Woodland Park NJ]
April 28, 2025
By Deena Yellin
Key Points
- The New Jersey Supreme Court heard arguments Monday in a long-running case over whether the state can form a special grand jury to investigate the Catholic Church’s handling of sex abuse allegations.
- The Diocese of Camden has sued to block the effort, arguing that it would violate judicial rules and be unfair to many accused clergy members.
- Justices grilled lawyers for both sides but seemed sympathetic to the state’s arguments.
A seven-year battle over whether New Jersey can investigate allegations of decades of sexual abuse by Catholic clergy in the state — and the extent of any church cover-up — landed in the state’s highest court on Monday.
The state Supreme Court heard the first of what are expected to be two days of arguments over a challenge brought by the Catholic Diocese of Camden, which has so far stalled a proposed grand jury investigation into all five of the dioceses that represent New Jersey’s roughly 3.2 million Roman Catholics.
Over the course of three hours, the justices grilled attorneys for the Camden Diocese and the state Attorney General’s Office over whether a special grand jury has the right to look into the activity of private entities like the church and its employees, or if the law limits such probes to government entities.
The Attorney General’s Office also argued that it would be premature to act before a grand jury has issued a report, known in legal-speak as a “presentment.” The diocese, meanwhile, maintained that the process would be unfair to dozens of clergy members — some alive, many deceased — who wouldn’t have the right to challenge the grand jury’s findings in court.
Although justices’ questions don’t always predict their final decisions, many of the court’s seven members seemed sympathetic to the state’s arguments during the hearing in Trenton.
“There are instances when the grand jury does something unexpected,” Justice Anne Patterson said. “We are talking about the facts of what would be in the presentment,” which may not be completed for years.
A final decision on the matter could be days or weeks away.
Diocese makes its case
At Monday’s hearing, Lloyd Levenson, an attorney for the Camden Diocese, started his arguments by saying the church acknowledged the “evil” of sexual abuse. The diocese was not aiming to hide past transgressions and has cooperated with individual criminal investigations for decades, he said.
But Levenson questioned the aim of the state’s proposed investigation, as well as its legality, arguing that the grand jury presentment could accuse individual priests without giving them the opportunity to fully defend themselves.
“The goal here is obviously to condemn the Catholic Church and to condemn priests and bishops,” he said. “You’d have to be Rip Van Winkle to not realize what is going to come out of this. I can tell you what’s gonna come out of it: They’re going to say from 1940 to the present … that there were problems in the Catholic Church with child sexual abuse and the movement of priests. They’re gonna say that. I could write it for them.”
A ruling in the state’s favor would clear the way for a probe that has been in limbo almost since it was first proposed by then-Attorney General Gurbir Grewal in 2018.
Sexual abuse survivors and their advocates had wondered for years why the state wasn’t moving forward with that promise. The delay wasn’t publicly explained until February, when The Record and NorthJersey.com reported that Camden had won a lower-court ruling in 2023 blocking the formation of the grand jury — and then convinced the judge to seal the proceedings.
The courtroom on Monday was packed with attorneys, abuse survivors and their families, said Greg Gianforcaro, a lawyer from Phillipsburg who represents hundreds of people in clergy abuse lawsuits around the country. He predicted the Supreme Court would reverse the lower-court ruling and allow the grand jury to convene.
“Some of the justices made comments that made clear that they understood the impact on child sexual abuse on the public,” he said. “Other judges made clear that without convening a grand jury, how can anyone predict what the grand jury will turn up?”
What’s at stake in clergy abuse probe
The Camden Diocese is home to roughly 500,000 Catholics in Atlantic, Camden, Cape May, Cumberland, Gloucester and Salem counties. The state’s other four dioceses did not challenge the grand jury investigation, though the case still holds major implications for them.
Levenson said the church had already made many necessary reforms to prevent abuse, citing a 2002 agreement between the state and the dioceses. With that already in place, he questioned whether the aim of the grand jury investigation was more political.
Grewal promised to launch his investigation after the release of a Pennsylvania grand jury report that made headlines across the nation. It found that hundreds of Catholic priests had sexually abused at least 1,000 children in the Keystone State while church officials moved accused clergy from parish to parish in an attempt to stifle inquiries.
Grewal said he would form a task force to probe the extent of such behavior in New Jersey and would empanel a special grand jury with subpoena power. The inquiry was to include a report documenting its findings.
Michael Zuckerman, representing the state, said the diocese’s argument that a special grand jury was not allowed to look into the impacts of a private religious entity was “squarely wrong,” noting that the ultimate goal of the state probe would be to improve “the general welfare” of society.
He also argued that judicial rules call for any grand jury reports to be reviewed before their release to the public, providing a layer of protection against overreach by the state. Any check on the grand jury should occur “in the ordinary course” of the process, he said, “and not in this kind of hypothetical, premature posture.”
Correction: A prior version of this story incorrectly said that the Supreme Court had scheduled two days of arguments about the Camden diocese case. The Court scheduled one day for arguments.