The Ninth Circuit of Appeals determined that the Vatican could be a defendant in a case brought by a victim of abuse at the hands of a priest. At issue is the interpretation of the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act of 1976. That law includes several exceptions to immunity, including 28 USC § 1605, which reads:
(a) A foreign state shall not be immune from the jurisdiction of courts of the United States or of the States in any case—Before the Supreme Court, the Obama administration's Solicitor General is siding with the Vatican's interpretation of the U.S. law:
(5) not otherwise encompassed in paragraph (2) above,in which money damages are sought against a foreign state for personal injury or death, or damage to or loss of property, occurring in the United States and caused by the tortious act or omission of that foreign state or of any official or employee of that foreign state while acting within the scope of his office or employment;
In a filing on Friday, the solicitor general's office argued that the Ninth Circuit court of appeals erred in allowing the lawsuit brought by a man who claims he was sexually abused in the 1960s by the Oregon priest.The Obama administration apparently doesn't think priests actually work for the Pope.
The unnamed plaintiff, who cited the Holy See and several other parties as defendants, argued the Vatican should be held responsible for transferring the priest to Oregon and letting him serve there despite previous accusations he had abused children in Chicago and in Ireland.
The solicitor general's office, which defends the position of President Barack Obama's administration before the Supreme Court, said the Ninth Circuit improperly found the case to be an exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, a 1976 federal law that sets limits on when other countries can face lawsuits in US courts.
"Although the decision does not conflict with any decision of another court of appeals, the Court may wish to grant the petition, vacate the judgement of the court of appeals and remand to that court for further consideration".
