Argued January 10, 2025 Decided April 25, 2025

No. 23-7173

DAVID O'CONNELL, APPELLEE

v.

UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS, APPELLANT

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (No. 1:20-cv-01365)

Daniel H. Blomberg argued the cause for appellant. With him on the briefs were Kevin T. Baine, Emmet T. Flood, Laura Wolk Slavis, Colten L. Stanberry, Kelly R. Oeltjenbruns, and Kelsey Baer Flores. Mark S. Storslee entered an appearance.

Daniel F. Mummolo, Christopher G. Michel, and Rachel G. Frank were on the brief for amicus curiae Federal Courts Professor Derek T. Muller in support of appellant.

Aaron M. Streett and Matthew M. Hilderbrand were on the brief for amicus curiae Dr. Lael Weinberger in support of appellant. 2

Michael J. Showalter, Victoria N. Lynch-Draper, and Joel S. Nolette were on the brief for amici curiae Seven Religious Organizations in support of appellant.

Thomas G. Hungar, Russell B. Balikian, and Cameron J. E. Pritchett were on the brief for amici curiae Law & Religion Scholars in support of appellant.

Gabriel Z. Doble argued the cause for appellee. With him on the brief were Martin Woodward and Simon C. Franzini.

Jenny Samuels and Alex J. Luchenitser were on the brief for amicus curiae Americans United for Separation of Church and State in support of appellee.

Before: SRINIVASAN, Chief Judge, CHILDS, Circuit Judge, and EDWARDS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion for the Court filed by Senior Circuit Judge EDWARDS.

EDWARDS, Senior Circuit Judge: This case involves an action by Appellee, David O’Connell, against Appellant, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (“USCCB”), for fraudulent solicitation of donations. In his complaint, O’Connell claims that, at the urging of USCCB, he and others donated money to Peter’s Pence Collection for the purported purpose of helping those in immediate need of assistance in disaster-stricken parts of the world. O’Connell contends, however, that USCCB fraudulently concealed that most of the donations to Peter’s Pence were not for victims of war, oppression, natural disaster, or disease, as he and others allegedly had been told. Rather, according to O’Connell, most of the donated money was “diverted into various suspicious 3 investment funds, which in turn have funneled the money into such diverse ventures as luxury condominium developments and Hollywood movies while paying fund managers hefty, multi-million dollar commissions.” Complaint ¶ 4.

Before discovery and trial, USCCB moved to dismiss the case in District Court. USCCB contended that the court had no subject matter jurisdiction because O’Connell’s action was barred by the church autonomy doctrine. Without in any way addressing the merits of the parties’ claims, the District Court denied the motion to dismiss. The court found that, at this stage of the litigation, O’Connell’s claims raised a purely secular dispute that could be resolved according to neutral principles of law. However, the District Court made it clear to the parties that it could not and would not address purely religious questions, should they arise during litigation. Thereafter, rather than proceeding with trial, USCCB filed an appeal with this court seeking interlocutory review. For the reasons explained below, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction and remand the case to the District Court for further proceedings.

Section 1291 of the Judicial Code confers on federal courts of appeals jurisdiction to review “final decisions of the district courts.” 28 U.S.C. § 1291. “A ‘final decisio[n]’ is typically one ‘by which a district court disassociates itself from a case.’” Mohawk Indus., Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100,