SCOTUS GVRs Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany Back to New York Purgatory

This case has been pending for nearly a decade, and has been remanded after both Fulton and Catholic Charities Bureau.

For nearly a decade, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany has challenged New York's law mandating that insurance policies cover abortions. A cert petition was first filed in April 2021.But in November 2021, the Court GVR'd the case in light of Fulton. In May 2024, the New York Court of Appeals found that Fulton changed nothing.

In July 2024, the Diocese petitioned for cert a second time. The case sat on the docket for nearly a year. On June 5, the Court decide Catholic Charities Bureau. On June 9, the Court scheduled the Diocese petition for the June 12 conference. The Diocese urged the Court to summarily reverse in light of the Wisconsin case:

This Court's unanimous ruling in Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission, 605 U.S. ----, 2025 WL 1583299 (June 5, 2025), controls the initial question presented in this matter. Unless the Court wishes to grant the petition for other reasons, summary reversal is warranted. Granting the petition to vacate the decision below for a second time and remanding for yet further consideration would needlessly prolong this matter, imposing significant burdens on Petitioners and other religious organizations.

Unsurprisingly, New York sought a remand to keep the case on ice.

Today, nearly a year after the most recent cert petition was filed, and more than four years after the first petition was filed, the Court GVR'd the case in light of Catholic Charities Bureau.

It is difficult to describe how much time and effort has been spent on this case, amid two major landmark rulings. Yet, at least five members of the Court sent the Diocese back to New York purgatory. And I'm willing to bet that Justice Barrett, the Court's premier procedural formalist, was unwilling to grant a summary reversal. Much more on Justice Barrett tomorrow.

Comments

[JoeFromtheBronx]

JB must be busy if a NYT Barrett profile published days ago has yet to result in a reply yet even after another VC team member did have one.

As to this issue, checking the docket page, there is a "Supplemental brief of respondents Adrienne A. Harris, Superintendent, et al. filed." after the opinion was handed down.

New York supported a GVR.

[Bob from Ohio]

"New York supported a GVR."

As JB noted.

They can continue to stall now.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

GVR is standard after an opinion is handed down.

They hold things for related cases. Not just "Barrett." It's common practice without any justice commenting.

New York discusses why the procedure makes sense.

Instead of talking about "stalling," we can talk about GVR'ing a case with different facts. Which is normal practice.

[Bob from Ohio]

NY supported the GVR to avoid a judgment against it on the hope the state court will ignore SCOTUS again. Probably a safe bet.

[wvattorney13]

But USAID spending needs an immediate resolution. It's clear that you disfavor the litigant here.

Surely we can agreed that a system where the litigants I like get relief in 10 hours but the ones we don't like still wait after 10 years is not a fair one.

[Sarcastr0]

So your comparison here....I guess if you favor TROs you believe you have to hate GVRing or else you have a double standard?

Utterly different legal things should be treated legally different.

[Stuart]

"Much more on Justice Barrett tomorrow."

The NYT beat you to it already. Too little too late.

[Aladdin's Carpet]

You are not entertained by this blog being Josh’s personal gossip column???

[Martinned2]

Who might have expected that the Catholic Church could have weird obsessions that they pursue beyond all rationality?

[ReaderY]

Even at the height of the Roe era, the Court agreed that opposition to abortion has a rational basis from a secular point of view. Maher v. Roe in particular held that not wanting to include abortions in a government insurance plan is not only a completely rational government objective, it survives Roe scrutiny. I think this makes both the “weird obsessions” and “beyond all rationality” insults particularly uncalled for.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

And three to four justices (Stevens in a later case) explained that the move was problematic. Putting aside that doesn't clarify if this specific challenge is based on "weird obsessions" or not.

(Ginsburg also argued the constitutional policy was wrong.)

[wvattorney13]

Roe itself said as much. It acknowledged that the state had an interest in the preservation of prenatal life, it was just that interest was not strong enough to overcome a pregnant woman's interest in privacy, in accordance with the trimester formula.

[Riva]

The Catholic Church puts great importance on faith, and, wait for it, reason.

Thinking is important. You should try it sometime. And try educating yourself on a topic before making a comment. That way you might not come across as an ignorant jackass. I doubt that’s the first time you’ve received this advice.

[ReaderY]

I wonder if Justice Barrett, and perhaps other Catholic members of the Court, might think it appropriate to be careful to not give an appearance of showing any special favoritism to the Catholic church by being careful to go through regular procedural order rather than appear to be rushing things.

[wvattorney13]

"For nearly a decade...." You could certainly say that nobody is accusing them of rushing things for the Catholic Church. Imagine the legal bills.

Posters here demand that SCOTUS rule within hours on their favorite issue, but this litigation is going on for a decade and the Court still sends it back to hostile territory.

The lesson is that if you are a plaintiff don't ask for relief on guns or religion.

[Dan Lo Pan 2]

Ooh, I'm holding my breath waiting for Josh's insights on ACB. Can't imagine what he thinks.

[MaddogEngineer]

Having seen this reported in other places, with a much different context, I am perplexed as to what is the legal truth here. Of course, I can't trust Blackman for that.

The other reporting seems to expect a victory for the nuns. I do realize the lower courts are loathe to do that, so maybe Blackman is correct here. Too bad he has destroyed his credibility because of his personal vendettas against several justices. I wouldn't expect a fair analysis of why this isn't correct on the procedures. No one knows exactly why this case has been held by the Court for a decade. Or rather, why the Court's changed composition over that time didn't resolve it in the direction Blackman favors. I imagine the early portion of the delay was favorable to the nuns case, keeping them from outright losing. I don't know that a definitive SCOTUS ruling was ever possible given where the case stood.

[mulched]

[F.D. Wolf]

The justice system can be cumbersome, but procedures must be followed. They can only be short-circuited for very special petitioners, like illegal alien gangbangers at risk of being deported a little bit faster than usual.

[huskerdru]

Man, i know he’s disappointed in J Barrett, but you’d think she shot his dog or something

[ikaritenshi]

This was the correct decision, and the NY response give good reasons why.