Arizona’s Proposed Clergy Reporting Bill

By Sophie Hallam. 

A proposed bill in Arizona, H.B. 2039, has renewed a longstanding and unresolved legal question: to what extent may a state compel the disclosure of information obtained through sacramental confession for the purpose of child protection?

The bill would modify Arizona’s current mandatory reporting framework by requiring clergy to report information about child abuse, even if the information is obtained solely through a confession or other confidential religious communication. Proponents of the bill argue that it is necessary to reform gaps in child abuse reporting, while critics argue that the bill would impermissibly intrude on religious liberty and would not achieve its stated aims. 

Mandatory Reporting and Confessional Privilege Under Current Arizona Law

Current Arizona law designates certain professionals as mandatory reporters of child abuse, including clergy. However, the statute exempts “members of the clergy” who have “received a confidential communication or a confession in that person’s role as a member of the clergy.” In fact, clergymen may withhold reporting if they determine it is “reasonable and necessary within the concepts of the religion.” This exception reflects a broader legal recognition that some relationships, like that between a psychotherapist and patient, attorney and client, and clergy and penitent, warrant a higher level of confidentiality under the law. 

Confessional privilege historically has been treated as distinct from ordinary evidentiary privileges. In many faith traditions, including Catholicism, confessions have absolute confidentiality. In Catholicism, priests are expressly forbidden under Church law from disclosing the contents of a confession under any circumstances. Violation of this obligation carries severe consequences, including excommunication. 

Arizona’s current framework tries to strike a balance between competing interests—encouraging reporting of abuse while avoiding direct interference with religious law. 

Proposed Legislative Change

The proposed legislation would require clergy to report suspected, ongoing child abuse regardless of how the information was obtained, including when obtained through a confidential confession. Supporters of the bill argue that existing exemptions create a loophole that could allow abuse to remain undisclosed, specifically where abusers confess to the clergy but authorities do not otherwise learn of the abuse.

The bill does not single out one particular denomination, but its practical effect would fall most heavily on religious traditions that treat confession as inviolable. If enacted, clergy would face a direct conflict between legal compliance and their religious obligation. 

Constitutional Considerations about the Change in the Bill 

Any analysis of this proposed legislation must grapple with constitutional constraints, particularly those arising under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. While neutral laws of general applicability are generally permissible even if they incidentally burden religious practice, the inquiry becomes more complex when a law substantially burdens a core religious ritual which has historically been exempt from certain obligations. 

Proponents may argue that the reporting requirement is neutral and generally applicable, as it is aimed at protecting children rather than regulating religion. From this perspective, any burden on religious practice is incidental and justified by a compelling state interest. 

Critics could argue that forcing the disclosure of confessional communications constitutes a substantial burden on religious exercise. Unlike incidental effects such as zoning restrictions or even employment regulations, this law would compel clergy to violate a central tenet to their faith and religious law. Courts have historically been cautious when state action intrudes so directly into internal religious practice.

Further, even if the bill is deemed constitutionally valid, it could still face scrutiny under state constitutional provisions or statutory religious freedom protections that impose a higher standard. 

Policy Arguments in Favor of the Bill 

Supporters of the proposed bill emphasize the gravity of child abuse and the state’s obligation to protect vulnerable populations. Mandatory reporting laws exist precisely because abuse is often hidden or underreported. Any exception that allows information to remain confidential may frustrate that goal. 

From this perspective, no institution (either religious or otherwise) should be insulated from reporting obligations when children are at risk. Advocates argue that confessional privilege may unintentionally shield abusers by providing a space to admit wrongdoing without consequence. Eliminating the exception, they contend, sends a clear message that child safety supersedes institutional confidentiality. 

Supporters also note that other privileged relationships, such as those involving psychologists, are already subject to reporting requirements. Treating clergy differently reflects an unjustified preference rather than a principled distinction. 

Policy Arguments Against the Bill

In response, critics raise both constitutional and practical objections. First, they argue that the bill is largely symbolic—arguing that clergy who are bound by absolute confession rules are unlikely to comply regardless of this legal mandate. In these cases, the proposed law would not increase reporting but would instead place clergy in legal jeopardy without actually advancing child protection. 

Second, opponents argue that the legislation could be counterproductive. If individuals believe that confession is no longer confidential, they may be less likely to disclose abusive conduct or seek moral counsel, reducing opportunities for clergy to encourage accountability, self-reporting, and intervention. 

Third, critics also warn of broader implications. Once the state compels disclosure in the confessional context, they argue it may invite further incursions into religious confidentiality. This raises concerns about precedent and the separation between church and state. 

Finally, lengthy litigation is probable. If this proposed bill passes, it will likely face a constitutional challenge, and the resulting uncertainty could delay implementation while imposing significant legal costs on the state. 

Broader Implications 

Arizona’s debate over this bill reflects a national conversation about the scope of mandatory reporting laws and the status of religious privilege. States vary widely in how they treat confessional communications. Thirty-three states currently exempt clergy from reporting abuse. On June 23, 2025, the United States Department of Justice sued Washington State over similar legislation which the DOJ labeled an “Anti-Catholic law.” This lawsuit culminated in a settlement, under which clergy remain mandatory reporters, but both state and county prosecutors agreed not to enforce those provisions with information learned by clergy solely in confession or other religious equivalents. 

The question is not merely whether abuse should be reported, as there is broad consensus on that point, but rather how the law should structure reporting obligations in a way that is both effective and constitutionally sound. Legislatures must consider whether removing confessional privilege for admissions of child abuse meaningfully advances child protection or whether other approaches, such as enhanced reporting outside of religious contexts, would be more effective. 

Conclusion 

The proposed clergy bill presents Arizona lawmakers with a difficult and consequential choice. On one hand is the compelling interest in protecting children from abuse, particularly in cases of ongoing harm, while on the other are the constitutional and doctrinal limits on state interference with religious practices and laws. 

Whether the legislation ultimately advances child safety or prompts significant legal conflict will depend on how courts interpret and rule on the law after it is challenged, particularly in balancing those interests. Regardless of the bill’s fate, the debate underscores the enduring challenge of legislating at the intersection of public safety and religious liberty.

As the proposal moves through the Arizona Legislature, it will serve as a test case for how far mandatory reporting obligations can extend and what limits, if any, the Constitution places on the state’s ability to compel speech from religious actors.