The actual situation is a lot more nuanced than the headline makes it out to be. The main issue at hand here is the Catholic seal of confession, which has an extremely long history in US law (and in the law in many other countries) as being protected under freedom of religion. Essentially, Catholics are supposed to confess their sins to a priest and be given instructions on how those sins can be forgiven. This practice is extremely old, and crucially, the priest isn't allowed to tell anyone what they were told in confession unless the confessor wants them to. This is for obvious reasons- nobody would confess anything to the priest otherwise. They take this very seriously- Catholic priests essentially believe that breaking the seal of confession is a one way ticket straight to Hell for themselves (actual situation is more complex but that's the short version) and most won't do it even if the law says they have to.

Anyway, the law in question essentially requires priests to break the seal of confession in child sex abuse cases. That seems rational given how many other people are mandated reporters, but because of the long history in US law of respecting the seal of confession and how central this practice is to Catholic doctrine, it's understandable that there is a legal fight about it and why a judge put a pause on it. Regardless of what you may personally believe on this matter, US law depends on precedent and I find it unlikely that even a normal supreme Court that isn't controlled entirely by far right activist judges would let this one stand, if this even made it to the supreme court. The precedent is just very much against it.