In the wake of the New York Times' publication of confidential discussions and memos between Supreme Court justices, legal authorities are raising the alarm, warning that such sensitive leaks are "destructive" to the integrity of the high court.
According to Fox News, the New York Times alleged that internal memos and deliberations revealed Chief Justice Roberts as having "molded" the outcomes of three major cases. These cases pertained to the Jan. 6 rioters and the granting of a certain level of immunity to former President Donald Trump for presidential acts. The report suggests that Roberts, who wrote the majority in the decisions, "provided crucial support for hearing the historic [immunity]," and made last-minute, unexplained changes to the authorship of the politically charged opinions.
This leak comes on the heels of the unprecedented leaked draft of the Dobbs opinion, which overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022. This incident coincides with a concerted push by Democratic lawmakers and the Biden administration to implement sweeping changes to the court and ethics enforcement. Republican lawmakers, including Senators Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and John Kennedy, R-La., argue that these efforts are politically motivated attempts to delegitimize the court, which currently has a majority of Republican-appointed justices.
Legal experts suggest that this latest leak is part of a broader effort to undermine the Supreme Court. James Burnham of King Street Legal and a former senior Justice Department official, expressed his concern, stating, "I think it's enormously destructive to the court when people inside the court disclose to the press confidential memoranda, confidential emails and what appears to even be remarks made at the justices' conference."
Burnham further explained that such leaks inhibit the justices' ability to be candid with each other, fearing that their words could end up in the New York Times. This fear could lead to less communication among the justices, hinder their ability to deliberate with the same openness they historically have, and ultimately undermine the court's decision-making process.
Carrie Seveino, president of the Judicial Crisis Network, echoed these sentiments, stating that "if there is someone on the Court who deserves censure for being overly political in this case, it's the individual who leaked" the "highly confidential internal" documents. She added that this incident aligns with the ongoing left-wing PR campaign against the Court, which she views as an attempt to smear the Court as an institution.
John Shu, a constitutional attorney who served in both Bush administrations, believes the leaks are politically motivated. He suggests they are likely designed to keep Roberts anchored in the center or perhaps push him towards center-left in the upcoming term, especially if Trump is elected this November. Shu emphasized the unique position of the Chief Justice, stating, "Because he is the Chief Justice, he gets to assign opinions when hes in the majority, which is much of the time, and he has administrative power that the other justices do not have."
Shu expressed his concern over the violation of the sacred confidentiality of deliberations and the opinion drafting process, stating, "It's really scary that yet another norm has been shattered." This sentiment underscores the gravity of the situation and the potential implications for the Supreme Court's future operations.
Login