Supreme Court Still Has Serious Leak Problem

Ever since the Dobbs opinion leaker escaped any punishment or even exposure, many of us have worried that the precedent would encourage further leaks from the Supreme Court, especially to left-leaning journalists eager to discredit and delegitimize the Court. Here we are again. On Sunday, the New York Times published an article titled “How Roberts Shaped Trump’s Supreme Court Winning Streak.” The story looks at the behind-the-scenes maneuvering in the Court’s confidential deliberations over three Donald Trump-related cases last term: the Colorado Trump ballot-disqualification case (Trump v. Anderson), the January 6 defendants statutory case (Fischer v. United States), and the Trump presidential-immunity case (Trump v. United States).

The obvious questions arise: Who is leaking to the Times, and how can this be stopped? Leaks of internal deliberations may not be as drastic and unprecedented as leaking an entire draft opinion. Nor do after-the-fact leaks of deliberations in already-decided cases represent the same kind of security threat to the justices as a leak of a pending decision, which signals that the only way to stop it from being issued is to intimidate or harm the justices in the majority.

About the Author

Dan McLaughlin

Dan McLaughlin is a senior writer at National Review Online and a fellow at National Review Institute.

Featured Tags

Chief Justice Roberts

Samuel Alito

Ever since the Dobbs opinion leaker escaped any punishment or even exposure, many of us have worried that the precedent would encourage further leaks from the Supreme Court, especially to left-leaning journalists eager to discredit and delegitimize the Court. Here we are again. On Sunday, the New York Times published an article titled “How Roberts Shaped Trump’s Supreme Court Winning Streak.” The story looks at the behind-the-scenes maneuvering in the Court’s confidential deliberations over three Donald Trump-related cases last term: the Colorado Trump ballot-disqualification case (Trump v. Anderson), the January 6 defendants statutory case (Fischer v. United States), and the Trump presidential-immunity case (Trump v. United States).

The obvious questions arise: Who is leaking to the Times, and how can this be stopped? Leaks of internal deliberations may not be as drastic and unprecedented as leaking an entire draft opinion. Nor do after-the-fact leaks of deliberations in already-decided cases represent the same kind of security threat to the justices as a leak of a pending decision, which signals that the only way to stop it from being issued is to intimidate or harm the justices in the majority.