DOE et al. v The Corporation et al.

Argument summary

AI-generated — not an official transcript or court record.

1. Counsel for the Corporation argued that the Arizona reporting statute creates a specific exception for confidential clergy communications to avoid First Amendment issues, asserting that courts should defer to religious authorities' judgments on what constitutes a confession.
2. The justices questioned whether courts have any role in assessing the credibility of a clergy member's claim that a communication was confidential or if such determinations must be entirely hands-off to avoid entanglement with religious doctrine.
3. Counsel for the Corporation distinguished the mandatory reporting statute from the priest-penitent privilege, noting that the reporting obligation is self-executing and backed by felony punishment, requiring real-time deference to clergy determinations.
4. Counsel for the Doe children argued that the statute is constitutional under Employment Division v. Smith because it is neutral and generally applicable, suggesting that First Amendment cases should not be used to rewrite the statute.
5. The attorneys debated whether determining confidentiality is a two-step process involving both a secular judicial fact-finding component and a religious determination of whether the communication falls within the concepts of the faith.
6. Counsel for the Doe children contended that the specific communications in this case were not confidential because they occurred in the presence of unauthorized individuals, including a mandatory reporter, thereby waiving any privilege or exemption.

Recordings

1. Recording · PT55M53S · Captions available