SCOTUSBlog: How the leak might have happened

[brooklynite]

Among the debates generated by the leak of Justice Samuel Alito’s opinion in Dobbs is whether the leaker was conservative or liberal. The leak will ultimately pale in importance to the court’s decision once it is issued; the ruling will directly affect the lives and rights of tens of millions of people. But in the meantime, the motives of the leaker are an important topic because they help explain why an institution that zealously guards its secrets suddenly seems porous.

Start from the premise that there were actually (at least) two leakers, and three leaks. The first leak was to the Wall Street Journal editorial board last week. In substance, it was that the court had voted to overrule Roe v. Wade, but that the precise outcome remains in doubt because Chief Justice John Roberts is trying to persuade either Justice Brett Kavanaugh or Justice Amy Coney Barrett to a more moderate position that would uphold the Mississippi abortion restriction without formally overturning Roe.

While not formally presented as relying on a leak, the editorial transparently does. The most obvious example is that it predicts that Alito is drafting a majority opinion to overrule Roe, but gives no explanation for that prediction and none is apparent. We now know that Alito did draft that opinion.

The second leak was to Politico. Likely within the past few days, a person familiar with the court’s deliberations told them that five members of the court – Alito, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, along with Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch – originally voted to overturn Roe and that remains the current vote. In addition, the position of the chief justice is unclear. The remaining justices are dissenting.

The third leak was also to Politico. It was presumably – but not certainly – by the same person. Someone provided them with Alito’s Feb. 10 draft opinion.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/05/how-the-leak-might-have-happened/

[sop]

1. "Kavanaugh Asks If Anyone Has Seen Briefcase He Accidentally Left at Bar Last Week."

"Kavanaugh, who appeared to have some difficulty reconstructing the time line of the evening, said that he arrived at the bar 'around seven' and that it was 'ten, maybe ten-thirty when they asked me to leave'...The jurist was evasive when asked to describe the contents of his briefcase, saying only that it was 'work papers and junk' that he would 'really like to have back.'”


https://link.newyorker.com/click/27611009.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

[malaise]

2. Bwaaaaaah!

😀😀😀😀