Amicus Curiae Brief — United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Petitioner v. David O'Connell

No. 25-849

IN THE

Supreme Court of the United States

_____________________

UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS,

v.

Petitioner,

DAVID O’CONNELL,

Respondent.

_____________________

On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the

United States Court of Appeals for the

District Court of Columbia Circuit

_____________________

BRIEF FOR AMICUS CURIAE JOHN H. GARVEY

_____________________

COLTER PAULSON

Counsel of Record

GERALD R. SHARPE III

SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP

2550 M Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20037

(202) 457-6000

C colter.paulson@squirepb.com

March 6, 2026

Counsel for John H. Garvey

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES....................................... ii

INTEREST OF THE AMICUS CURIAE....................1

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION AT ISSUE ...........1

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ............................1

ARGUMENT ...............................................................3

I.

II.

The long history of Peter’s Pence shows

that questions about its purpose and use

are inherently religious in nature....................3

A.

The history, practice, and

doctrine behind Peter’s Pence. .........4

B.

Peter’s Pence in today’s Church. ......6

C.

The Pope’s control over Peter’s

Pence and how priests preach

about it in homilies. ..........................8

This lawsuit asks courts to overrule the

Pope’s thousand-year-old discretion to

manage Peter’s Pence. .................................... 11

CONCLUSION .......................................................... 15

ii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Cantwell v. Connecticut,

310 U.S. 296 (1940) ........................................... 15

EEOC v. Catholic Univ. of Am.,

83 F.3d 455 (D.C. Cir. 1996) ............................. 13

Huntsman v. Corp. of the President of The

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day

Saints,

127 F.4th 784 (9th Cir. 2025) ........................... 13

Other Authorities

Code of Canon Law, Canon 212 ............................. 14

Code of Canon Law, Canon 222 ............................... 7

Code of Canon Law, Canon 331 ............................... 8

Code of Canon Law, Canon 360 ............................... 9

Code of Canon Law, Canon 392 ............................. 14

Code of Canon Law, Canon 528 ............................... 9

Code of Canon Law, Canon 767 ............................. 10

Code of Canon Law, Canon 1261 ............................. 7

Code of Canon Law, Canon 1271 ............................. 9

Code of Canon Law, Canon 1273 ............................. 9

Code of Canon Law, Canon 1417 ........................... 14

Colossians ................................................................. 7

Congregation for Bishops, Apostolorum

Successores (2004) ............................................... 9

General Instructions of the Roman Missal,

The Vatican ....................................................... 10

Herbert Thurston, Peterspence, The

Catholic Encyclopedia (1911) ......................... 5, 6

iii

History of Peter’s Pence, The Vatican ...................... 6

John Garvey, What Are Freedoms For

(1996) ........................................................... 13, 14

Luke .......................................................................... 7

Matthew .................................................................... 7

Michael McConnell, Establishment and

Disestablishment at the Founding, Part

I: Establishment of Religion, 44 Wm. &

Mary L. Rev. 2105 (2003) ................................... 6

Motu Proprio, Una migliore organizzazione ........... 9

Peter’s Pence Collection Transmittal Form,

USCCB .............................................................. 11

Pope Benedict XVI, Address to Members of

St. Peter’s Circle (2007) ...................................... 7

Pope Francis, Evangelii Gaudium (2013).............. 10

Pope John Paul II, Speech at the Circle St.

Peter (2003).......................................................... 8

Pope Pius IX, Saepe Venerabiles (1871) .................. 6

Rev. Paweł Lewandowski, Peter’s Pence as a

Form of Financing the Needs of the Holy

See (2024) ...................................... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11

Rory Naismith & Francesca Tinti, The

Origins of Peter’s Pence, 568 Eng. Hist.

Rev. 522 (2019) ................................................ 4, 5

USCCB, Catechism of the Catholic Church

(Libreria Editrice Vaticana 2d ed. 1997) ........... 7

Vatican, Homiletic Directory .................................. 10

W.E. Lunt, The Financial System of the

Medieval Papacy in the Light of Recent

Literature, 23 Q.J. Econ. 251 (1909)................... 4

1

INTEREST OF THE AMICUS CURIAE

John H. Garvey is the Clynes Distinguished

Visiting Professor of Law at Notre Dame Law School,

the former President of The Catholic University of

America, and a nationally respected Catholic

intellectual. He was also the Dean of the Boston

College Law School, a past President of the

Association of American Law Schools, and served as

Assistant to the Solicitor General of the United States.

He has written extensively on First Amendment law

and Catholic thought. He has an interest in the sound

development of the church autonomy doctrine.1

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION AT ISSUE

The First Amendment

provides in relevant part:

to

the

Constitution

“Congress shall make no law respecting an

establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free

exercise thereof…”

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

Peter’s Pence is a religious offering that the

Catholic Church has collected for more than fourteen

hundred years. From its origins as voluntary alms

brought by Anglo-Saxon rulers to Rome, through its

development as a religious tax in the Middle Ages, its

Reformation decline and nineteenth-century revival,

into today’s worldwide practice, Peter’s Pence is an

offering entrusted to the Pope for the use of the

universal Church. Its timing, symbolism, and

administration reflect core aspects of Catholic belief,

including unity with Saint Peter and the Pope’s

1 All parties received 10-days’ notice of the filing of this brief. No

counsel for a party authored this brief in whole or in part, and no

counsel or party made a monetary contribution intended to fund

the preparation or submission of this brief.

2

ultimate responsibility for the Church’s charitable

mission. This historical and religious context should

warn courts away from deciding whether to recast this

millennia-old religious offering into Respondent’s

preferred conception of his donation—or allowing this

case to proceed any further.

Peter’s Pence is not a mere raffle or charity bingo

night; it is a practice deeply rooted in the Church’s

history, practice, and doctrine. This case asks civil, as

opposed to ecclesiastical, courts to decide if a priest’s

homily, and the Pope’s use of Peter’s Pence funds,

accord with Catholic charity, history, and doctrine.

But Respondent’s lawsuit is also premised on a

misunderstanding. As a matter of Church structure,

governance, and law, the United States Conference of

Catholic Bishops (USCCB) does not control either the

homilies of parish priests or how Peter’s Pence

donations are spent. Aside from missing the mark on

the merits, Respondent’s lawsuit requires courts to

resolve inherently religious questions about church

polity, doctrine, and governance.

Evaluating Respondent’s claims would necessarily

force a court to decide for itself who within the Church

controls (or who can control) the contents of homilies,

whether a particular homily is inconsistent with

Catholic teaching about Peter’s Pence, what a

reasonable parishioner should believe about Catholic

doctrine, and—most importantly—how donated funds

should be administered by the Pope. Just as well

might a parishioner sue the Church because a priest

used the wrong words in a baptism, or was later

discovered not to have been ordained.

The D.C. Circuit did not take these concerns

seriously, mirroring the district court’s blithe

assurance that it could avoid “purely” religious

questions. But this Court has repeatedly held that

3

civil courts cannot second guess churches on matters

of faith and governance. Allowing civil courts to decide

this case would improperly thrust the judiciary into

an intra-religious dispute over the meaning of

Catholic charity, the Pope’s authority, and other

religious questions.

If this Court denies certiorari those questions will

be resolved in the wrong forum. Not all of the world’s

1.4 billion Catholics may agree with how the Pope

decides to spend Peter’s Pence funds. But there are

internal procedures and ecclesiastical tribunals

within the Catholic Church for resolving such

concerns. The First Amendment does not permit civil

courts to decide whose understanding of Peter’s Pence

is correct or to delimit the Pope’s discretion. That

question belongs to the Catholic Church alone. Any

dispute can and must be resolved free from state

interference.

The Court should grant the petition.

ARGUMENT

I.

The long history of Peter’s Pence shows

that questions about its purpose and use

are inherently religious in nature.

The unique ecclesiastical history of Peter’s Pence

confirms that its nature, purpose, and use are matters

of faith and church governance. From its origins as

seventh-century alms offered at St. Peter’s tomb to its

current form as a worldwide collection supporting the

Holy Father’s mission, Peter’s Pence represents

devotion to the papacy and solidarity with the

Church’s evangelical work. Respondent asks courts to

judge this millennia-long practice, and wrongly claims

the USCCB is responsible. Under Church law, the

USCCB controls neither the disposition of Peter’s

Pence (a matter of discretion for the Pope) nor the way

4

parish priests may address the subject in their

homilies. Viewed in the proper light, Respondent’s

claim turns solely on religious doctrine, ecclesiastical

structure, and Catholic understandings of charity.

A. The history, practice, and doctrine behind

Peter’s Pence.

1. Peter’s Pence originated more than a thousand

years ago as an annual gift of alms that Anglo-Saxon

royalty pledged to the Pope. W.E. Lunt, The Financial

System of the Medieval Papacy in the Light of Recent

Literature, 23 Q.J. Econ. 251, 278 (1909). In the

seventh and eighth centuries, English kings and

nobles routinely journeyed to Rome bearing gifts for

the papacy and for the tombs of Saints Peter and Paul.

Rev. Paweł Lewandowski, Peter’s Pence as a Form of

Financing the Needs of the Holy See, 654 (2024). These

early offerings reflected both religious devotion and

an emerging sense of unity between distant Christian

communities and the See of Rome. Rory Naismith &

Francesca Tinti, The Origins of Peter’s Pence, 568 Eng.

Hist. Rev. 522, 522 (2019).

Historical accounts illustrate the practice.

Cædwalla, king of the West Saxons, traveled to Rome

to be baptized and brought gifts for the Pope. Id. at

522. After his death, Pope Sergius I (687–701) ordered

the phrase mystica dona gerens engraved on his tomb,

signifying that he had come to Rome “bearing sacred

gifts.” Id. at 524. By the ninth century, such offerings

had become common among rulers, and gifts to St.

Peter’s were closely associated with pilgrimage to the

Eternal City. Id. at 525–26. Scholars have explained

that “Peter’s Pence is best understood as a

systematized form of these earlier voluntary gifts to

Rome, achieved thanks to strong governance and a

sharpening sense of communal religious identity in

the late Anglo-Saxon period.” Id. at 522.

5

2. This practice evolved during the Middle Ages.

What began as voluntary gifts developed into a

government-imposed levy to support the Church.

Historical sources give these practices names such as

“Romfeoh,” “Romescot,” or “Romepenny,” but the

underlying concept was that rulers collected a special

tax from households and transmitted the funds to

Rome. Herbert Thurston, Peterspence, The Catholic

Encyclopedia (1911); Naismith & Tinti, supra, at 530–

35; Lewandowski, supra, at 655. Originating in

England, the custom spread to other northern

European countries during this period as well.

Thurston, supra.

Over time, mechanisms for collecting this tax

became more formalized. Naismith & Tinti, supra, at

533. Later legislation promulgated at Enham,

England, in 1008 by Æthelred requested payments by

St. Peter’s Day, and there were penalties for those

who failed to pay the tax. Id. at 533–34, 537.

Collections were often administered locally, and over

time, became a general expectation among

communities. Id. at 539–40. By the mid-twelfth

century, rulers transmitted Peter’s Pence at fixed

rates, though the overall sums sent to Rome began to

decline. Id. at 539–44. As political dynamics shifted

and both papal and royal authorities asserted greater

independence, the practice waned. Id. at 545. Even so,

scholars have observed that Peter’s Pence remained a

notable means for foreign leaders to cultivate

relationships with the Pope, emphasizing the

remarkable longevity of a system directed toward a

distant religious authority. Id. at 551.

3.

The Protestant Reformation marked a

significant disruption to longstanding Catholic

practices, including support for Peter’s Pence. The

period was characterized by sustained targeting of

6

Catholic institutions and traditions. Michael

McConnell, Establishment and Disestablishment at

the Founding, Part I: Establishment of Religion, 44

Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 2105, 2112–14 (2003). Against

that backdrop, Peter’s Pence gradually disappeared

from historical records. Lewandowski, supra, at 663.

What sources we have indicate that payments

resembling Peter’s Pence were effectively paused

during this era. Thurston, supra.

4. Peter’s Pence re-emerged in the nineteenth

century under Pope Pius IX. In the 1860s, the offering

was revived as a voluntary subsidy to support the

Papacy following the loss of revenue from the Papal

States. Thurston, supra. Shortly before the end of the

Papal State and the loss of its territorial income in

1870, Catholics throughout Europe and beyond

initiated efforts to provide material aid to the Pope, a

response that offered encouragement during a period

of retrenchment for the Papacy. History of Peter’s

Pence, The Vatican, https://perma.cc/M3VS-3AE4.

Pope Pius IX formally reactivated Peter’s Pence in

his encyclical Saepe Venerabiles, issued August 5,

1871, on the occasion of the twenty-fifth anniversary

of his pontificate. Saepe venerabiles (1871),

https://perma.cc/W3CV-5YJX. From that period

forward, Peter’s Pence developed into today’s

voluntary worldwide offering.

B. Peter’s Pence in today’s Church.

In its current form, Peter’s Pence is a voluntary

offering collected throughout the worldwide Church

on June 29—the Solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul—

or on the Sunday closest thereto. By contributing to

Peter’s Pence, Catholics fulfill obligations to God and

respond to the Church’s call to take part in its mission.

While the tradition of Peter’s Pence is over a

7

millennium old, the expectation that the Catholic

faithful materially support the mission of the Church

is far older, rooted in Scripture itself. See, e.g., Luke

8:1–3. Safeguarding the needs of the universal

Church through tithing and other forms of giving is

an obligation incumbent on all Catholics. See, e.g.,

Code of Canon Law, Canons 222, 1261. Acts of charity

are “work[s] of justice pleasing to God,” USCCB,

Catechism of the Catholic Church ¶ 2462 (Libreria

Editrice Vaticana 2d ed. 1997), that help fulfill the

obligation to “[t]hink of what is above, not of what is

on earth.” Colossians 3:1-2. Peter’s Pence also reflects

a broader vision of lay co-responsibility within the

Church’s mission and strengthens unity between the

faithful and the universal Church. See Lewandowski,

supra, at 654.

The name and timing of the collection also

underscore its religious importance. The reference to

Peter emphasizes the continuity between the present

Pope and Saint Peter—the rock upon which, according

to Catholic belief, Jesus built His Church. Matthew

16:13-20. That the offering is collected on or around

June 29, when the Church commemorates the

martyrdom of Saints Peter and Paul at the hands of

their own civil government, is also significant.

Today, the worldwide collection supports the

international ministries and charitable works of the

Holy See and sustains the universal mission of the

Holy Father by funding activities carried out by the

Dicasteries, Entities, and Bodies of the Holy See. Pope

Benedict XVI, Address to Members of St. Peter’s

Circle (2007), https://perma.cc/ZD4P-C7DK. It also

funds individual initiatives of charity, solidarity, and

other efforts for the common good. Id.

8

Popes have repeatedly emphasized the offering’s

religious and material significance. As Pope John

Paul II explained:

Many expect the Apostolic See to give them the

support they often fail to find elsewhere. In this

perspective the Peter’s Pence Collection is a true

and proper participation in the work of

evangelization, especially if one considers the

meaning and importance of concretely sharing in

the concerns of the universal Church.

Pope John Paul II, Speech at the Circle St. Peter (2003),

https://perma.cc/H3CA-MVMD.

From the earliest donations from seventh-century

kings to the present day, the Pope has always retained

personal discretion to dispose of Peter’s Pence funds

in support of the religious and charitable activities of

the Holy See. See, e.g., Lewandowski, supra, at 657.

Through centuries of historical development, Peter’s

Pence has remained a religious offering directed

toward the evangelical mission of the universal

Church and entrusted solely to the Pope’s discretion.

Donations are a work of charity and an expression of

faith in Peter’s successor.

C. The Pope’s control over Peter’s Pence and

how priests preach about it in homilies.

1. Pope’s Control. Canon law vests responsibility

for Peter’s Pence in the Pope. The Roman Pontiff— “in

whom continues the office given by the Lord uniquely

to Peter”—“is the head of the college of bishops, the

Vicar of Christ, and the pastor of the universal Church

on earth,” possessing “supreme, full, immediate, and

universal ordinary power in the Church.” Canon 331.

He exercises that authority “through the Roman

Curia,” which conducts “the affairs of the universal

9

Church … in his name and by his authority.” Canon

360.

For matters such as Peter’s Pence, bishops merely

“assist in procuring those means which the Apostolic

See needs” to serve the universal Church, Canon 1271,

while “the Roman Pontiff is the supreme

administrator and steward of all ecclesiastical goods.”

Canon 1273. Peter’s Pence, as Church law and

tradition confirm, is a collection “designed to enable

the Church of Rome to fulfill properly its office of

presiding in universal charity.” Congregation for

Bishops, Apostolorum Successores ¶14 (2004).

Since Cædwalla first brought alms to St. Peter’s in

the 600s, the Pope has exercised exclusive control of

Peter’s Pence. That authority continues today, as the

funds collected through Peter’s Pence are managed

day-to-day by the Vatican’s Administration of the

Patrimony of the Apostolic See (APSA), which is

under the Pope’s supervision. Motu Proprio, Una

migliore organizzazione, https://perma.cc/ZQF9-FBA3.

2. Priests’ Homilies. The USCCB, in common with

other episcopal conferences around the world, asks

bishops to encourage the collection of Peter’s Pence.

But the USCCB does not control or dictate the

language of individual homilies, as Respondent claims.

On the solemnity when Peter’s Pence is collected,

parish priests decide whether to preach about Peter’s

Pence and solicit donations during their homilies.

Church law assigns responsibility for the homily to

the parish pastor: “The pastor is obliged to see to it

that the word of God in its entirety is announced to

those living in the parish … especially through the

homily which is to be given on Sundays and holy days

of obligation.” Canon 528. The Church’s Directory for

Homiletics instructs that in preparing his homily, a

10

priest does so through prayer, study, meditation, and

pastoral reflection. Vatican, Homiletic Directory,

https://perma.cc/W746-MMC8. As Pope Francis

explained, “[t]he preacher must know the heart of his

community” so that the “dialogue” between God and

His people “may be renewed and deepened.” Evangelii

Gaudium ¶137 (2013).

The homily is not merely a reflection—it is the

principal moment of preaching during the Mass. In

the homily “the mysteries of faith and the norms of

Christian life are to be explained from the sacred text

during the course of the liturgical year.” Canon 767.

Its religious significance is part of the reason the

homily is entrusted to an ordained figure in the

Church and “never to a lay person.” General

Instructions of the Roman Missal, The Vatican,

https://perma.cc/F6MW-LWFC. Far from being

dictated by a nationwide conference of bishops, a

priest’s homily is written with an eye towards his local

community and the religious text to be read on that

particular day.

3. Respondent misstates USCCB’s role. In the

courts below, Respondent characterized the USCCB

as saying: “[T]he Conference of Catholic Bishops” “told”

the priests “what to say to our parishioners.” Pet. App.

242a (cleaned up). But that’s wrong. The USCCB is

the episcopal conference of the Catholic Church in the

United States. Pet. App. 197a. It is an entity distinct

from the individual bishops throughout the country.

It does not control how a parish priest delivers a

homily. Nor does it censor priests’ homilies or

mandate scripts for parish preaching. In the Catholic

tradition, preaching a homily is a local pastoral act by

the parish priest—not something dictated by the

USCCB.

11

Respondent also claimed that the USCCB

“directed” that Peter’s Pence be applied to certain

purposes and “profited” from it. Pet. App. 185a; see

also Pet. App. 195a. That, too, is wrong. Church

history and law could not be clearer: the Pope—and

not American Bishops—decides how to spend the

proceeds from the worldwide offering that is Peter’s

Pence. The few exceptions prove the rule, as when

Pope Pius XII authorized certain bishops to donate

Peter’s Pence funds to victims of World War II.

Lewandowski, supra, at 657 n.12. That authority

existed only because the Pope granted it in that

special instance, not because the individual bishops

possessed inherent authority to spend Vatican funds

without direct authorization from the Pope.

The USCCB’s involvement with Peter’s Pence is

limited to promoting the offering. Pet. App. 202a.

Collected monies are sent directly from local dioceses

to the Holy See. Peter’s Pence Collection Transmittal

Form, USCCB, https://perma.cc/2S9L-ZRPC. The

USCCB does not decide how the funds are used. Nor

does it decide how (or whether) priests solicit

donations for Peter’s Pence in homilies on the

Solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul. The USCCB

creates promotional materials that parishes may use,

but parishes have full discretion to do as they will. Pet.

App. 202a-205a.

II.

This lawsuit asks courts to overrule the

Pope’s thousand-year-old discretion to

manage Peter’s Pence.

The controversy over Peter’s Pence is a dispute

over religious meaning that cannot be judged by civil

courts. It asks what types of expenditures fall within

the Catholic definition of “charity” and how far the

Pope’s discretion extends. Those are questions that

are (and should be) answered by Catholic theology,

12

tradition, and canon law, all of which originated

hundreds of years before the advent of the common

law. The First Amendment removes such issues from

judicial oversight.

The court of appeals did not see a problem with

deciding whether the Pope can invest Peter’s Pence.

One judge dismissed religious concerns as “silly” and

“laughable” at oral argument, as he maintained that

courts can easily avoid “purely” religious issues. But

the district court summarized Respondent as claiming

“the charitable fund was not used to fund charitable

purposes.” Pet. App. 38a (emphasis added). What

constitutes “charitable purposes” in this context is an

inherently religious question. The solicitation was

delivered from the pulpit during Mass to parishioners

about the Church’s use of donated funds. And for more

than fourteen centuries, the determination of how

Peter’s Pence is allocated has been entrusted to the

Pope’s religious authority and discretion. The dispute

arises only because a disgruntled parishioner—who

concedes the funds were used for authorized Church

purposes—simply disagrees with the Pope’s

conception of charity.

The gravamen of Respondent’s lawsuit is that,

rather than going immediately to humanitarian

causes, some of Peter’s Pence was invested. The

complaint even quotes Pope Francis on the issue:

[N]o one should be bothered by the fact that the

Vatican invests the money it collects from

Catholics around the world. The sum of Peter’s

Pence arrives and what do I do? Put it in a drawer?

No, that’s bad administration. I try to make an

investment.

Pet. App. 183a.

13

Respondent wants civil courts to overrule Pope

Francis, asking for a holding that Peter’s Pence

cannot be placed in “investment funds” and that “fund

managers” of such investments should not receive

“hefty” “commissions.” Pet. App. 170a. He even asks

for an order “permanently enjoining” the Church from

such practices. Pet. App. 192a.

Respondent also claims that the funds were not

used for “charitable works” because, rather than going

toward “emergency assistance,” they helped “defray

Vatican administration expenses.” See, e.g., Pet. App.

185a. Putting aside the peculiar notion that covering

the Church’s operating costs is somehow not

charitable, Respondent’s position effectively invites a

civil court to second guess the Pope—the successor of

St. Peter—on directing Peter’s Pence toward keeping

the lights on in St. Peter’s itself.

How the Pope chooses to allocate Peter’s Pence is

a religious question that must be left to the Catholic

Church. To adjudicate the dispute, a civil court would

have to “choos[e] among ‘competing religious visions’”

of charity, EEOC v. Catholic University of America, 83

F.3d 455, 465 (D.C. Cir. 1996), exactly what the First

Amendment forbids. Whether a parish priest or the

USCCB is misstating the doctrine or tradition of

Peter’s Pence is also a religious issue. “Nothing says

‘entanglement with religion’ more” than adjudicating

whether a church “should have spoken with greater

precision about inherently religious topics.”

Huntsman v. Corp. of the President of The Church of

Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 127 F.4th 784, 792793, 796-799 (9th Cir. 2025) (en banc).

Amicus curiae has written that “we should allow

[churches] to resolve their own disputes and enforce

the outcomes they settle on.” John Garvey, What Are

Freedoms For, 154 (1996). This rule both “secure[s] a

14

social benefit” for “the health of society” and protects

personal freedom. Id. at 153. Churches are “one of the

most important ... associations that stand

intermediate between the individual and the state,

and provide a buffer that is the best protection for

personal freedom.” Id. Personal freedom, under the

church autonomy doctrine, reflects that “those

devoted to communitarian forms of religious life

believe that the ends of such life—the goods pursued

by their group—are more important than individual

aspirations.” Id. at 154.

Catholics like Respondent may (and do) disagree

with how the Pope allocates Peter’s Pence. But the

question here is who decides what Catholic charity

means and how those funds should be used—the

Catholic Church or American civil courts. The First

Amendment requires courts to leave those issues to

the Church, which possesses its own internal

procedures and tribunals to address precisely these

sorts of disagreements. Respondent can seek a refund

of his donation in ecclesiastical tribunals under Canon

1417. He can petition his bishop through Canon 392,

§1 to reprimand a priest for a misrepresentation of the

Pope’s discretion to spend Peter’s Pence. Respondent

can also speak to the priest directly through the

authority in Canon 212, §3.

Nor is this among the narrow set of cases in which

civil court review of Church expenditures is

appropriate for embezzlement, self-dealing, stolen or

diverted funds, or the like. See Religious

Organizations C.A. Amicus Br. 17-21. Respondent

concedes that the Pope received the funds and spent

them for Church purposes. See, e.g., C.A. Response Br.

49; Br. in Opp. 2-3. Respondent’s only contention is

that it was improper for the Church to invest the

money and use it for overhead and still regard those

15

expenditures as “charitable.” See Pet. App. 176a (“the

charitable works of Pope Francis”), Pet. App. 177a

(“his charitable works around the world”), Pet. App.

178a (“the charitable works of Pope Francis”). This is

a dispute about competing visions of Catholic charity,

not a tort wrapped in the “cloak of religion.” Cantwell

v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 306 (1940). Questions

about the Pope’s discretion sit well within the

boundaries of the church autonomy doctrine. Courts

should not and cannot decide those questions,

especially when a thousand years of tradition commit

those decisions to the Pope’s sole authority.

CONCLUSION

This Court should grant certiorari, reverse the

judgment of the D.C. Circuit, and resolve the

numerous splits below.

Respectfully submitted,

COLTER PAULSON

Counsel of Record

GERALD R. SHARPE III

SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP

2550 M Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20037

(202) 457-6000

C colter.paulson@squirepb.com

Counsel for John H. Garvey

March 6, 2026