N.J. prosecutors can convene a grand jury to investigate decades of Catholic clergy sex abuse, state Supreme Court rules
The Diocese of Camden had fought for years to block the inquiry from moving forward.
New Jersey’s Supreme Court ruled Monday that state prosecutors can convene a special grand jury to investigate decades of sexual abuse by Catholic priests — the latest chapter in a long legal battle over how and whether such a probe should be allowed to move forward.
In a unanimous decision, the state’s seven justices reversed a 2023 lower court ruling that had barred the New Jersey Attorney General’s Office from beginning its inquiry — one that prosecutors said would seek to publicly detail allegations of wrongdoing by priests and church officials over the years, just as prosecutors in Pennsylvania had done in 2018.
The lower court’s ruling, which effectively quashed the New Jersey probe before it had a chance to begin, had come in response to a request from the Diocese of Camden, which filed sealed court documents saying the attorney general’s proposed investigation was not permitted under state law.
That stance — and the delay it caused — left many advocates outraged when the diocese’s role was revealed earlier this year.
Then, just weeks after diocesan attorneys had gone before the high court to again argue in favor of suppressing the probe, the new bishop of Camden, Joseph A. Williams, reversed course, saying the diocese would no longer oppose the investigation and instead would seek to work with prosecutors toward a fair and comprehensive outcome.
The justices said in their opinion Monday that the ruling blocking the probe was “premature,” adding: “The State has the right to proceed with its investigation and present evidence before a special grand jury.”
In a statement Monday, First Assistant Attorney General Lyndsay V. Ruotolo said that the office was “grateful” for the ruling and that it confirmed “what we have maintained throughout this lengthy court battle: that there was no basis to stop the State from pursuing a grand jury presentment on statewide sexual abuse by clergy and the conditions that allowed it to go unchecked for so long.”
And although Rutolo did not explicitly state that the office would now seek to impanel a grand jury, she said prosecutors remained committed “to doing all we can to support survivors and advance the healing they deserve.”
Michael Walsh, a diocesan spokesperson, said in a statement that the church now “remains committed to fully cooperating” with the investigation and added: “To the victims and all those impacted by abuse, we reaffirm our sorrow, our support, and our unwavering resolve to do what is right, now and always.”
Mark Crawford, the New Jersey director for Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, said he was “elated” at the court’s decision, and hopeful that the issues that contributed to the clergy abuse scandal “will finally be revealed in the light of day.”
“No one is above the law — there has to be accountability, and the public has a right to know what led to this massive breach of trust," Crawford said.
The legal fight over the probe has its roots in a 2018 announcement by then-New Jersey Attorney General Gurbir Grewal. Shortly after prosecutors in Pennsylvania that year released an extensive grand jury report detailing decades of clergy abuse across the state, Grewal said his office would seek to do the same.
But in 2021, Camden’s diocese filed a sealed motion arguing that grand jury reports in New Jersey must focus on misconduct by government agencies or officials. They said such reports in New Jersey, known as presentments, cannot single out private organizations and detail allegations that prosecutors can’t or won’t charge, either due to the statute of limitations or other issues with evidence.
Two years later, Mercer County Superior Court Judge Peter Warshaw sided with the diocese during a closed-door hearing. And he then went a step further and blocked prosecutors from impaneling a special grand jury, ruling that to do so would be a waste of time and resources if the intended outcome was not legal.
An appellate court later affirmed Warshaw’s ruling. Prosecutors appealed both decisions.
Church lawyers held firm for years in their opposition — insisting that they had no issue with prosecutors charging priests with crimes, but saying state law simply didn’t allow for the type of wide-ranging report that had been promised.
In the high court’s opinion released Monday, Chief Justice Stuart Rabner wrote that courts “cannot presume the outcome of an investigation in advance or the contents of a presentment that has not yet been written.”
If a grand jury decides to issue a presentment, he added, “the assignment judge should review the report and publish it” if it complies with the law.
Many advocates and victims of clergy abuse were outraged earlier this year when after the state’s high court agreed to hear the case, unsealed documents revealed the church’s legal efforts. And some were particularly outraged that the source of the resistance was Camden’s diocese, which declared bankruptcy in 2020 over a wave of sex abuse lawsuits and ultimately agreed to pay about 300 complainants $87.5 million.
Williams, who took over as Camden’s sole bishop earlier this year, said last month that he began reexamining the church’s position and ultimately decided that it was best to try to partner with prosecutors and allow victims to be heard.