Supreme Court Lets Boy Scouts Abuse Settlement Stand, Unlocking Funds and Shielding Local Partners

The check that Mark, a former Boy Scout from the Midwest, has waited decades to see is finally on its way. For years, he has watched the Boy Scouts of America’s bankruptcy grind through court while his abuse claim sat in a file. Now he is being told that a larger payment is coming, unlocked by a decision he never saw or heard: a one-line order from the U.S. Supreme Court.

For another survivor, who hoped to sue the church that sponsored his troop, the same order likely closed the door for good. The Supreme Court on Jan. 12 declined to hear a challenge to the Boy Scouts’ $2.46 billion sex-abuse settlement and reorganization plan, leaving in place legal shields for local councils, churches and other organizations that worked with the Scouts but never filed for bankruptcy themselves.

By refusing to take the case, the court effectively finalized one of the largest sex-abuse settlements in U.S. history and cleared the way for roughly $1.65 billion in escrowed funds to be released to tens of thousands of claimants. At the same time, it cemented a controversial legal structure that protects non-bankrupt institutions from future lawsuits — the kind of arrangement the justices rejected in a separate blockbuster ruling on the opioid-maker Purdue Pharma.

The Boy Scouts organization, which last year changed its name to Scouting America, welcomed the decision.

“Our plan is now final and irrevocable, and the Settlement Trust … can now expedite the payment of compensation to survivors of historical abuse,” the organization said in a statement after the ruling.

A routine order with major consequences

The Supreme Court acted in the case known as Lujan Claimants v. Boy Scouts of America, No. 25-490, denying a petition brought by about 75 abuse survivors who had objected to the bankruptcy plan. The unsigned order appeared on the court’s Jan. 12 list without explanation and with no noted dissents, a routine procedural move with major consequences.

The petitioners argued that the Boy Scouts’ reorganization relies on “non-debtor releases” — court-approved legal protections that extend beyond the bankrupt Boy Scouts to shield thousands of local councils, churches, civic groups and other “chartered organizations” that had sponsored Scout troops. Those entities contributed money and property to the settlement fund and, in exchange, are now largely immune from new civil suits over historical, Scouting-related abuse.

The challengers said that structure is unlawful in light of the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P., in which the justices held that the federal Bankruptcy Code does not authorize nonconsensual releases of claims against third parties who have not themselves filed for bankruptcy, except in narrow situations spelled out by Congress.

In Purdue, that ruling unraveled a proposed deal that would have given the Sackler family, the company’s former owners, broad civil immunity from opioid-related lawsuits in exchange for contributing billions of dollars to a settlement.

The Boy Scouts objectors asked the court to apply the same reasoning to Scouting America’s plan and restore their right to sue local councils, churches and others in state courts.

How the Boy Scouts plan reached the finish line

Lower courts, however, had already upheld the plan, and the timing of the Boy Scouts case proved decisive. The national organization filed for Chapter 11 protection in Delaware in February 2020 as it faced a wave of lawsuits enabled by changes in state statutes of limitations. By the November 2020 claims deadline, more than 82,000 men had come forward alleging they were sexually abused in Scouting programs over decades.

After two years of negotiations among the Boy Scouts, survivor committees, local councils, chartered organizations and insurers, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Laurie Selber Silverstein confirmed a global plan in 2022. The deal created a settlement trust valued at about $2.4 billion to $2.5 billion, funded by contributions from the national organization, local councils, sponsoring organizations and several major insurers, including Hartford and Chubb.

The Boy Scouts formally emerged from bankruptcy in April 2023 and began operating under the confirmed plan.

A federal district judge in Delaware later upheld Silverstein’s ruling, calling the agreement “the largest sexual abuse compensation fund in U.S. history.” When objecting survivors and some insurers appealed, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit largely left the plan in place in a May 13, 2025, decision.

The 3rd Circuit acknowledged the Supreme Court’s intervening Purdue ruling, but concluded that the Boy Scouts’ plan was already too far along to unwind. The appeals court said the reorganization had been “substantially consummated” and that unwinding insurance settlements and releases would be barred by statutory mootness provisions that protect certain bankruptcy transactions once they have closed.

The panel required only a narrow fix to protect certain rights of Allianz insurers, ordering the plan tweaked so that Allianz could seek reimbursement from the trust instead of seeing some of its contribution and indemnity rights entirely cut off.

What survivors can expect now

By the time of the Supreme Court’s Jan. 12 certiorari denial, Scouting America’s settlement trust had already begun paying survivors. Public reports indicate roughly $316 million has been distributed to more than 39,000 claimants. Those payments, however, represent only a fraction of what is owed on paper: the allowed value of claims submitted to the trust is estimated to exceed $12 billion.

Many survivors have accepted relatively small, quick “expedited” payments, trading potential higher awards for speed and certainty. Others are being evaluated under a compensation matrix that takes into account the severity of the alleged abuse, corroboration, and when and where it occurred. Top-tier awards in the most severe, well-documented cases can reach into seven figures, but those are rare and still subject to the trust’s limited resources.

Attorneys’ fees, typically charged as a percentage of awards, have been a particular source of frustration for some claimants.

Trustee Barbara J. Houser, a retired bankruptcy judge appointed to oversee the trust, has sought to increase the pool by pursuing litigation against non-settling insurers and by selling Boy Scouts assets, including Norman Rockwell and other artwork once associated with Scouting.

Despite the legal objections of the Lujan group, most voting survivors supported the plan. In court filings and public statements, Scouting America and survivor attorneys have noted that more than 85% of abuse claimants who cast ballots voted in favor of the deal.

Lawyer Joshua Schwartz, who represents more than 9,500 survivors, said the Supreme Court’s decision allows the trust to access $1.65 billion in funds that had been tied up during the appeal, opening the door for larger, second-round payments to many claimants.

The dispute over accountability

Supporters of the settlement say it represents the most realistic way to compensate tens of thousands of people while keeping the youth organization afloat. Without global releases, they argue, insurers and local entities would have had less incentive to contribute, and years of additional litigation could have left many survivors without any recovery, especially older men in fragile health.

Opponents counter that the plan sacrifices individualized justice for convenience. They argue that churches and civic groups that hosted troops should be held to account in open court, not shielded by a bankruptcy case they never joined.

Many of these critics point to the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Purdue, which condemned the use of bankruptcy to deliver a “discharge in all but name” to wealthy third parties who have not themselves gone through the rigors of Chapter 11.

The Boy Scouts plan, they note, gives broad legal peace to a wide array of institutions, including Roman Catholic dioceses, United Methodist congregations, Latter-day Saint wards and other community groups that partnered with the Scouts, without the public discovery and trials that come with civil suits.

Scouting America’s next chapter

The outcome leaves Scouting America trying to move forward under a new name while its past is being paid for through a finite trust.

The organization announced in 2024 that it would adopt the Scouting America name, effective Feb. 8, 2025, its 115th anniversary. Leaders said the change was meant to reflect a more inclusive, co-educational program. Membership, which had steeply declined from peak decades, has recently ticked up slightly to just over 1 million youths, including roughly 196,000 girls.

Scouting America has also emphasized youth-protection reforms. The group says all volunteers and staff must now complete mandatory training; one-on-one contact between adults and youth is barred under a “two-deep leadership” policy; background checks are required; and suspected abuse must be reported to law enforcement. Chief Executive Roger Krone has said the organization has added “modern reporting tools,” including an anonymous text hotline, and entered into partnerships with law enforcement agencies and the Department of Homeland Security to strengthen child-safety standards.

“When you’re in bankruptcy, you don’t do a lot of investment in anything but getting out of bankruptcy,” Krone told reporters previously, adding that the end of court oversight would allow Scouting America to focus more on program improvements.

A sense of closure — or a closed door

For survivors, the practical effects of the Supreme Court’s latest move may be more immediate than the legal nuances. Many are now expecting additional payments as escrowed funds are released and as the trust resolves more claims.

Yet the sense of closure varies.

Back in 2020, then-Boy Scouts National Chair Jim Turley wrote an open letter to victims, saying, “I am outraged that individuals took advantage of our programs to commit these heinous acts… On behalf of myself and the entire Scouting community: I am sorry.”

In the years since, that apology has been followed by a complex, contentious legal process that ended not with a trial but with a brief Supreme Court order. For some former Scouts, that order means a long-awaited check and a measure of validation. For others, it marks the moment when the chance to confront a local council or church in court slipped away for good.