## Facts

- Dorothy Morrison and her sons (Kenneth, Francis, and Thomas) were parishioners at St. Peter’s Catholic Church in Jackson, Mississippi.
- Father George Broussard, a diocesan priest and family friend, allegedly sexually abused the Morrison boys repeatedly between about 1970 and 1974 at the church, the Morrison home, and a lake house.
- In 1973, the boys’ father learned of the abuse and reported it to diocesan officials, including the vicar general.
- The Morrisons alleged diocesan officials characterized Broussard’s conduct as an “illness” and represented that the Diocese would handle the matter and that treatment was being provided.
- Broussard allegedly remained at St. Peter’s for about another year with access to children and continued abusing the Morrison boys and others; parishioners were not warned.
- Broussard was later transferred to another parish, where he allegedly continued abusing children before leaving the priesthood.
- The Morrisons sued the Diocese and the bishop, asserting secular tort claims including negligent supervision, negligent retention, and breach of fiduciary duty based on alleged knowledge of abuse and failure to protect children.
- The trial court denied a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction on First Amendment grounds and entered a broad order compelling production of diocesan documents.
- The Mississippi Supreme Court granted interlocutory review addressing jurisdiction and the discovery order.

## Issues

1. Whether the First Amendment and church-autonomy principles deprive civil courts of subject-matter jurisdiction over tort claims against a diocese for alleged negligent supervision/retention and related failures to protect children from a priest’s known sexual abuse.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by compelling expansive discovery without sufficient tailoring and consideration of privileges and First Amendment concerns.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the trial court’s denial of the Diocese’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
- The court held the First Amendment did not bar adjudication because the claims could be resolved through neutral tort principles without deciding religious doctrine or ecclesiastical disputes.
- The court vacated the discovery order as overbroad and an abuse of discretion.
- The court remanded for a narrower discovery approach that addresses relevance and asserted privileges and accounts for protected religious interests.

## Legal Principles

- Civil courts may adjudicate generally applicable tort claims against religious entities when the dispute can be resolved using neutral principles of law and does not require interpretation of religious doctrine or internal ecclesiastical discipline.
- The First Amendment distinguishes between protected religious belief (absolute) and conduct subject to regulation and civil liability under neutral standards, including duties aimed at protecting children from abuse.
- Establishment Clause limits are not violated where the suit has a secular purpose, does not primarily advance or inhibit religion, and does not require excessive entanglement with religion.
- Discovery in cases involving religious institutions must be limited to relevant, non-privileged material; courts must evaluate privilege claims (including clergy-penitent and attorney-client where applicable) and avoid unnecessarily sweeping production orders.

## Conclusion

The Mississippi Supreme Court permitted the Morrisons’ clergy-abuse negligence claims to proceed because they targeted alleged secular failures in supervision and protection rather than doctrine, while requiring that discovery be narrowed and screened for relevance and privilege to prevent improper intrusion into protected religious matters.


Roman Catholic Diocese of Jackson v. Morrison, 905 So. 2d 1213 (Miss. 2005) (en banc)