Confusion Between Parties Press Releases Ignites Outrage Among Victims of CSA at the Hands of the Boy Scouts of America

The Boy Scouts of America — known as Scouting America since 2025 — told Courthouse News in a statement that it “can now expedite the payment of compensation to survivors of historical abuse” following the Supreme Court decision, calling it “an important moment of healing and closure that survivors have long deserved.”

“This milestone marks the end of one chapter and the beginning of the next,” the organization added. “The Scouting movement is poised for growth, steadfast in our unwavering commitment to youth safety and focused on our core mission: preparing young people to make ethical and moral choices throughout their lives.”

Legal representatives for the victims opposing the settlement could not be immediately reached for comment… (the Publication goes on to say)

“As the Bankruptcy Court poignantly observed, ‘no compensation will ever be enough; for the abuse claimants have suffered,” wrote U.S. Circuit Judge Cheryl Krause, a Barack Obama appointee, in the panel’s ruling. “The plan nonetheless permits survivors to pursue their claims through the Trust Distribution Procedures and recover for at least some fraction of the suffering they have endured.”

Krause continued, noting the nonconsensual non-debtor releases would have left the Boy Scouts of America’s reorganization plan “unconfirmable” if proposed after the Supreme Court’s ruling against Purdue Pharma.

“And that temporal happenstance, we recognize, is a bitter pill to swallow, ‘but bankruptcy inevitably creates harsh results for some players,’” Krause added.

U.S. Circuit Judges Marjorie Rendell, a Bill Clinton appointee, and Anthony Scirica, a Ronald Reagan appointee, also ruled in favor of Boy Scouts of America.

Following the appeals court’s ruling, the 144 claimants petitioned to the Supreme Court for review — a request that was ultimately denied Monday.

The Supreme Court did not provide an explanation for its denial of review. Its decision retains the Third Circuit’s May 2025 ruling.

Courthouse News Service