Ivy Hill Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses v. Dep't of Hum. Serv.

310 A.3d 742

IVY HILL CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES, Appellant

v.Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Appellee

No. 65 MAP 2022

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued: September 14, 2023

Decided: February 13, 2024

Appeal from the Order of the Commonwealth Court at No. 316 MD 2020 dated May 10, 2022.

Matthew Hermann Haverstick, Esq., Mark Edward Seiberling, Esq., Shohin Hadizadeh Vance, Esq., Joshua John Voss, Esq., Kleinbard LLC, for Appellant.

Nicole Rue DiTomo, Esq., Michelle Ann Henry, Esq., Michael John Scarinci, Esq., Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General, Matthew John McLees, Esq., Kenneth J. Serafin, Esq., Cara Lunell Solimine, Esq., Pennsylvania Department of Human Services, Bureau of Hearings and Appeals, for Appellee.

TODD, C.J., DONOHUE, DOUGHERTY, WECHT, MUNDY, BROBSON, JJ.

OPINION

CHIEF JUSTICE TODD

In this direct appeal, we consider whether the Commonwealth Court, in dismissing a petition filed by Ivy Hill Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses (hereinafter, "Appellant") under the Declaratory Judgments Act ("DJA"),¹ violated the coordinate jurisdiction rule. For the following reasons, we hold that it did, and, accordingly, we vacate the Commonwealth Court’s order and remand this matter to that court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Appellant is a congregation of approximately 140 individuals in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, who follow the tenets of the Jehovah’s Witnesses religion. Every Jehovah’s Witnesses congregation is led by a body of elders, which consists of a group of five to seven volunteers. The elders are authorized to hear and respond to a congregant’s confession of sin, and, under their beliefs, are obliged to maintain the confidentiality of confessions. According to Appellant, its elders may receive confessions involving child abuse, which would implicate the mandatory reporting requirements of the Child Protective Services Law ("CPSL").²

Specifically, the CPSL identifies certain individuals who are deemed to be "[m]andated reporters." 23 Pa.C.S. § 6311(a). Mandated reporters are required to make a report of suspected child abuse to the Commonwealth’s Department of Human Services ("DHS") if they have "reasonable cause" to suspect that a child has been a victim of abuse. Id. In addition to doctors and school employees, the list of mandated reporters includes "[a] clergyman, priest, rabbi, minister, Christian Science practitioner, religious healer or spiritual leader of any regularly established church or other religious organization." Id. § 6311(a)(6). Under Section 6319 of the CPSL, mandated reporters who fail to report a case of suspected child abuse are subject to criminal penalties. Id. § 6319.

Further, Section 6311.1(a) of the CPSL specifies that otherwise-privileged communications between a mandated reporter and a patient or client of the mandated reporter are not privileged if they involve child abuse, and a mandated reporter is not relieved of the duty to make a report of suspected child abuse. Id. § 6311.1(a). However, Section 6311.1(b), which often is referred to as the "clergyman privilege," specifies that "[c]onfidential communications made to a member of the clergy" are protected pursuant to Section 5943 of the Judicial Code, which provides:

No clergyman, priest, rabbi or minister of the gospel of any regularly established church or religious organization, except clergymen or ministers, who are self-ordained or who are members of religious organizations in which members other than the leader thereof are deemed clergymen or ministers, who while in the course of his duties has acquired information from any person secretly and in confidence shall be compelled, or allowed without consent of such person, to disclose that information in any legal proceeding, trial or investigation before any government unit.

42 Pa.C.S. § 5943.

On May 20, 2020, Appellant filed in the Commonwealth Court's original jurisdiction a "Petition for Review in the Nature of a Complaint for Declaratory Relief’ (hereinafter, "Petition") against DHS, alleging that uncertainty as to whether its elders fall within the class of individuals covered by the clergyman privilege negatively impacts its ability to practice the Jehovah’s Witnesses faith.³ Accordingly, in Count I of its Petition, Appellant sought a declaration that its elders are entitled to protection under Section 6311.1(b) of the CPSL and Section 5943 of the Judicial Code because they are ministers of the gospel of a regularly established church, who are neither self-ordained, nor members of religious organizations in which members other than the leader thereof are deemed clergymen or ministers. In Count II of its Petition, Appellant argued that, in the event the court determined that the clergymen privilege does not apply to its elders, the court should declare Section 5943 unconstitutional, and sever the offending portion of the statute.

On May 22, 2020, Appellant filed an Application for Summary Relief, claiming the case presented a pure question of law as to whether the clergyman privilege applies to its elders, and that, to the extent the case implicates issues of fact, such facts are not the proper subject of dispute because they relate to the elders’ ecclesiastic functions of the Jehovah’s Witnesses faith.

[1] On July 31, 2020, DHS filed preliminary objections to Appellant’s Petition, asserting: (1) the Petition should be dismissed because Appellant lacked standing, in that it failed to allege it has been aggrieved or that there is an actual controversy between the parties; (2) the Petition should be dismissed because Appellant failed to join indispensable parties, including law enforcement officials such as the Attorney General, who are responsible for investigating and prosecuting individuals who fail to report; (3) Count I of the Petition should be dismissed because Appellant failed to exhaust its administrative remedies; (4) Count I of the Petition should be dismissed because the requested relief will not terminate the alleged uncertainty regarding future enforcement actions;⁴ and (5) Count II of the Petition should be dismissed because it lacks merit.⁵

With respect to Appellant’s Application for Summary Relief, DHS maintained that relief should be denied because: (1) although DHS receives reports of child abuse and maintains a report database, it does not investigate the reports or enforce the criminal statutes, and, thus, Appellant does not. have a clear right to judgment against DHS; (2) there exists a genuine issue of material fact concerning the role of Appellant’s elders; and (3) declaring that Appellant’s elders are entitled to invoke the clergyman privilege would equate to an improper adjudication of the validity of a defense to a potential future lawsuit.

Following oral argument, the Commonwealth Court, in a unanimous, unpublished en banc memorandum decision authored by then- President Judge, now-Justice Brobson, overruled DHS’s preliminary objections, but denied Appellant’s application for summary relief. See Ivy Hill Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Dep’t of Human Services, 2021 WL 2472274 (Pa. Cmwlth. filed June 17, 2021) (en banc) ("Ivy Hill I").⁶ After setting forth the relevant language of the CPSL and Section 5943 of the Judicial Code, the court addressed DHS’s assertion that Appellant lacked standing.

The Commonwealth Court recognized that, under Pennsylvania law, "an association has standing as representative of its members to bring a cause of action even in the absence of injury to itself, if the association alleges that at least one of its members is suffering immediate or threatened injury as a result of the action challenged." Ivy Hill I, 2021 WL 2472274, at *5 (quoting Robinson Township, 83 A.3d at 922). It further observed that "existing jurisprudence permits pre-enforcement review of statutory provisions in cases in which petitioners must choose between equally unappealing options and where the third option … is equally undesirable." Id. (quoting Robinson Township, 83 A.3d at 924).⁷

The court determined that the interest of Appellant’s elders in the outcome of the litigation "is sufficiently substantial, direct, and immediate to confer standing upon [Appellant] as their representative under Robinson Township and FOAC " because "[t]he uncertainty regarding the meaning and, alternatively, the validity of the clergyman privilege as preserved in the CPSL with respect to its coverage of the elders," leaves the elders with the "equally unappealing options" of: (1) reporting suspected child abuse of which they become aware through the course of a confidential communication, thereby violating their promise of confidentiality; (2) failing to report the suspected child abuse, thus risking criminal prosecution; or (3) abstaining from fully performing their ecclesiastical responsibilities as they relate to hearing confessions and providing spiritual guidance and counseling. Id. at *7.

The court further found that the interest of Appellant’s elders is "not remote,"⁸ as resolution of the matter "may affect how the elders perform their ecclesiastical functions, such as hearing confessions and providing spiritual guidance and counseling, and it will impact their reporting obligations under the CPSL." Id. Thus, the court concluded that pre-enforcement review was proper.

Regarding DHS’s contention that Appellant’s Petition should be dismissed because it failed to join indispensable parties – including law enforcement parties, such as the Attorney General, who are responsible for "investigating and prosecuting the criminal offenses arising out of the CPSL, including instances of failing to report," id. at *8 - the court first recognized that, pursuant to Section 7540(a) of the DJA, "[w]hen declaratory relief is sought, all persons shall be made parties who have or claim any interest which would be affected by the declaration, and no declaration shall...