The Arizona Supreme Court ruled unanimously last month that leaders in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS), also known as the Mormon church, can withhold confidential communications from mandatory reporting when certain requirements are met. The move has been praised by religious organizations and criticized by survivor advocacy groups.
The case stemmed from a lawsuit filed by three children of Paul Adams, who disclosed in 2011 to an LDS bishop that he had sexually abused one of his children. Adams later made additional disclosures during confidential church communications and was excommunicated in 2013.
At the time of the confession, the bishop reached out to a church help line for guidance and was advised not to report the abuse. Adams' children later sued the church and two of its bishops, alleging that the abuse continued for several years because it wasn’t reported after Adams’ admission.
What Did the Arizona Supreme Court Decide in the LDS Sexual Abuse Case?
The Arizona Court of Appeals heard the case after a county Superior Court first dismissed it. The appeals court revived the lawsuit, finding that questions remained about whether church officials were legally protected from reporting Adams' disclosures. Adams had disclosed the abuse not only to a bishop but also during a church disciplinary proceeding and to his wife. The appeals court concluded that a jury could consider whether the communications remained confidential. The Arizona Supreme Court reversed that decision.
The Supreme Court decided that asking a jury to determine whether church officials followed the organization's internal religious rules when deciding whether a communication was confidential would violate the church's First Amendment rights. The court also distinguished the clergy-penitent evidentiary privilege from Arizona's mandatory-reporting law. The reporting statute contains a separate exemption allowing clergy, under certain circumstances, not to report abuse learned through a confession or confidential communication.
Essentially, the court said that religious organizations, not courts or juries, determine whether a communication qualifies as a confession under their religious practices. Arizona law generally requires people who reasonably believe a child has been abused to report it to authorities. However, the law contains an exemption for clergy who learn of abuse through a confession or confidential communication when they determine that withholding the information is reasonable and necessary under the concepts of their religion.
Catholic dioceses in Arizona, the Church of Scientology, and other religious groups filed a "friend-of-the-court" brief in the case, which allows parties that aren’t directly involved with a case to share their perspectives. The organizations expressed support for the church and argued that forcing clergy to disclose confessional communications would violate religious freedom. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints applauded the ruling in a statement provided to the Salt Lake Tribune, “Arizona law also recognizes the confidential nature of religious confession. The decision affirms that these religious protections are to be respected alongside society’s shared commitment to protect the vulnerable.”
Why Arizona Law Protects Some Confidential Clergy Communications
The First Amendment protects people from government interference in the practice of religion, and it played a key role in the ruling. The justices found that it infringes on rights for a court to analyze how a church applies religious doctrine when deciding whether something is confidential.
Every state has mandatory reporting rules, but the specifics can get murky when considering clergy and private confessions. States generally recognize some form of protection for confidential communications between clergy and congregants, but the scope of that protection and how it interacts with child abuse reporting laws varies.
Washington state provides a recent example of how contentious these laws can become. In 2025, the state enacted a law making clergy mandatory reporters of child abuse without creating an exception for information learned through confession. Catholic organizations and the U.S. Department of Justice challenged the confession requirement in federal court. Washington later agreed not to enforce that portion of the law, although clergy remain mandatory reporters when they learn about suspected abuse outside of protected confessional communications.
What Does the LDS Church Ruling Mean for Sexual Abuse Survivors?
The ruling could affect some civil sexual abuse claims in Arizona, particularly when a case involves what religious leaders knew about the abuse and whether they had a duty to report it.
Survivor advocacy organizations have criticized the decision, arguing that allowing clergy to keep some disclosures confidential could prevent abuse from reaching law enforcement. The executive director of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests told the Arizona Mirror that the ruling could allow perpetrators to “escape justice.”
Under Arizona law, clergy may decline to report abuse learned through a confession or confidential communication when they determine that withholding the information is reasonable and necessary under the concepts of their religion. Critics argue that the exemption can leave authorities unaware of abuse that has been disclosed to religious leaders.
Can Sexual Abuse Survivors Still Sue a Church or Religious Organization?
The Arizona Supreme Court ruling doesn’t prevent someone who experienced sexual abuse in the LDS Church or another religious organization from filing a civil sexual assault lawsuit. The decision addresses Arizona's mandatory-reporting law and when clergy may keep certain religious communications confidential. It doesn’t give churches blanket immunity from every civil claim involving sexual abuse.
The ruling could still affect some lawsuits. Claims against a religious organization often depend on the specific facts of the case, including what church officials knew, how they responded to allegations or warning signs, and what duties they had under state law. The Arizona decision may limit claims that depend specifically on a clergy member's failure to report information obtained through a protected confession or confidential communication.
The case at the center of the ruling is Doe v. The Corporation of the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The Associated Press previously reported that the church helpline contacted after Adams disclosed the abuse advised the bishop that he could not report it to authorities.
The plaintiffs are also asking the Arizona Supreme Court to reconsider its decision. On August 12, their attorneys filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that the ruling misinterprets Arizona's mandatory reporting law and could grant religious organizations overly broad protection from civil liability. The court's docket listed the motion as filed as of August 14.
Clergy Sexual Abuse Reporting Laws Vary by State
The Arizona decision doesn't establish a nationwide rule. States have different requirements governing when clergy must report suspected child abuse and when confidential religious communications are exempt. The legal challenges surrounding Washington's reporting law also show that efforts to change clergy reporting requirements can raise complicated questions involving child protection, religious freedom, and the First Amendment.
Sexual abuse within a religious organization can be especially difficult to disclose when an abuser uses a position of authority, trust, shame, or fear to discourage someone from speaking out. Critics of clergy reporting exemptions argue that abuse disclosed in confidential religious settings may remain unknown to law enforcement or others who could intervene.
The Arizona ruling doesn’t eliminate the possibility of pursuing a civil claim against a church or other religious institution. If you've experienced sexual abuse in a religious setting, your legal options will depend on the circumstances of the abuse and the laws in your state. Civil sexual assault lawsuits may seek compensation for losses such as medical care, therapy, lost income, pain and suffering, and emotional distress. A clergy sexual abuse lawyer can explain applicable filing deadlines and whether the facts may support a claim against the perpetrator, a religious organization, or another responsible party.
