Pennsylvania Supreme Court

The state Supreme Court is set to hear arguments in several closely watched cases starting Tuesday, but a dispute stemming from the high-profile grand jury report outlining decades of sex abuse at Catholic dioceses across Pennsylvania is expected to highlight the two-day session.

A full complement of the court is scheduled to hear arguments in In re 40th Investigating Grand Jury on Wednesday. The court is set to consider what due process rights should be given to people and institutions that are named as perpetrators in the grand jury reports, but were not charged criminally over the conduct.

That grand jury report, which was released last month, exposed seven decades of abuse by clergy members, and said more than 1,000 children had been sexually abused in the state. The release sparked a national debate about accountability for child sexual abuse, and led several states, including New York, to launch similar investigations.

The justices announced their decision to take up the due process issue in July after challengers sought to block the report's release. As part of that decision, the Supreme Court also ordered the grand jury report to be redacted and released to the public. The court's 31-page opinion announcing its decisions had said that, although the report could be released with the names of specific priests and church officials redacted, those challenging the report's release raised significant constitutional due process issues that the court needed to address.

“The right of citizens to security in their reputations is not some lesser-order precept. Rather, in Pennsylvania, it is a fundamental constitutional entitlement,” Chief Justice Thomas G. Saylor said in the opinion.

The decision to take up the case came after the justices initially delayed the release of the report, which caused an outcry across the state, with editorial boards accusing the justices of “enabling” the abusive atmosphere and denying victims their voices, and one state legislator calling the decision “a travesty of justice and an insult to all victims of childhood sex abuse.”

On the other hand, some practitioners contended that the grand jury investigation process has become increasingly muddled over recent years, and the Supreme Court should provide some guidance on the proceedings.

Child Abuse

The case set to kick off the Supreme Court's Tuesday session is another that has received attention around the state. That case, In the Interest of L.J.B.; Appeal of A.A.R., is set to test whether a mother's decision to take drugs while pregnant constitutes child abuse if it causes bodily injury to the infant after birth.

Last December, a three-judge panel of the state Superior Court ruled in a case of first impression that a woman who tested positive for marijuana and opiates after giving birth could be found to have committed child abuse if the child suffered harm as a result of the drug use. The ruling reversed a decision by the Clinton County Juvenile Division, which said the Child Protective Services Law does not allow a mother's action to be considered child abuse if they were undertaken while the child was a fetus.

Superior Court Judge H. Geoffrey Moulton, who wrote the majority's opinion, agreed with the argument that a fetus or “unborn child” does not meet the definition of a “child” under the law, but he said that, once the infant is born, it clearly fits within the definition of the law.

“Under the plain language of the statute, mother's illegal drug use while pregnant may constitute child abuse if the drug use caused bodily injury to the child,” Moulton said. “If Children and Youth Services establishes that through mother's prenatal illegal drug use she 'intentionally, knowingly or recklessly' caused, or created a reasonable likelihood of, bodily injury to child after birth, a finding of 'child abuse' would be proper.”

The Supreme Court granted allocatur in the case April 3, agreeing to hear arguments on two issues: “(1) Does 23 Pa.C.S. Section 6303 et seq. allow a mother be found a perpetrator of 'child abuse' in the event she is a drug addict while her child is a fetus[?] (2) Is the intent of 23 Pa.C.S. Section 6386 limited to providing 'protective services' to addicted newborns and their families and not so expansive to permit alcoholic or addicted mothers be found to have committed child abuse while carrying a child in her womb[?]”

Later Wednesday

The high court is also set to hear arguments Wednesday in a case that could affect thousands of mortgage conveyances across the state, and another case that deals with a record fine by the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission.

Immediately following arguments about due process rights attached to grand jury proceedings, the high court is scheduled to hear arguments in MERSCORP v. Delaware County. The case wades into whether an electronic mortgage registry company violates state law by not recording transfers with local county officials.

The court specifically agreed to address whether electronically registering transfers “systematically evade” 21 P.S. Section 351, which governs the failure to record conveyances, and whether the county recorders of deeds have standing to bring their claims.

According to the questions raised in the Supreme Court's one-page per curiam order, at issue are “many thousands of conveyances” across the state, and “conduct that undermines the public land recording system.”

Later that afternoon, the court is also set to hear arguments in HIKO Energy v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission.

In that case, the justices are set to review whether the Public Utility Commission's record-high $1.8 million fine against an energy distribution company that allegedly overcharged customers during the 2014 polar vortex was impermissibly excessive.