The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
A Taxonomy To Measure Supreme Court Leaks
I offer a taxonomy to measure Supreme Court leaks, with three primary variables: (1) timing, (2) details, (3) impact.
Chief Justice Roberts called the leak of the draft Dobbs opinion a "singular and egregious breach of that trust" and a "betray[al] of confidences." But over the past decade, Roberts has been silent in the face of other leaks. Why is the Politico story so "egregious." Indeed, the reaction to the Politico leak has been almost uniformly negative, even as other leaks generated a collective yawn. Why is this leak different from all other leaks?
I offer a taxonomy to measure Supreme Court leaks, with three primary variables: (1) timing, (2) details, (3) impact.
First, the timing of a leak matters. On one end of the spectrum, Joan Biskupic had a very successful streak of publishing leaks after the OT 2019 term completed. Way back in 1973, there was also a leak in Roe v. Wade, in which an issue of Time magazine dropped a few hours before the opinion came out. (The notion of people actually buying a magazine from newsstands seems so unfamiliar by today's standards.) On the other end of the spectrum, there were leaks while NFIB and Bostock were pending. Of course, those media outlets didn't say outright that they had a leak. Rather, they engaged in well-informed speculation about what was going on in the Court. Wink, wink, nod, nod. The Politico story was so unique because it was published two months before the term concluded, and expressly acknowledged there was a leak.
Second, not all leaks have the same amount of detail. For example, during the run-up to NFIB, rumors swirled that the Chief Justice was getting wobbly. But the specific nuances of his saving construction were not well known. And notwithstanding the leaks, the spending clause aspect of the opinion still took everyone by surprise. Likewise, the Wall Street Journal's initial post about Roberts trying to "turn" votes in Dobbs lacked much specificity. By contrast, after the OT 2019 term, Joan Biskupic published a series of really, really detailed discussions of what happened at conference, and how Justices shifted and shaped their votes. Here, Biskupic had some really detailed insights from conference, which only the Justices can attend. (Has Joan published a single bit of inside information since Justice Ginsburg died?)
Third, various leaks serve different purposes. Leaks published after the term concludes are retrospective. They are designed to set the record straight; to make friends look good; to make adversaries look bad. And so on. Retrospective leaks are primarily of interest to Supreme Court nerds like you and me. Their impact is minimal. Indeed, when I expressed outrage about Joan's post-Term leaks, most people thought I was overreacting. Other leaks are extremely impactful. Generally, leaks made prior to the end of the term, when votes are still in flux, are intended to move those votes. NFIB, Bostock, and the WSJ Dobbs leak fit into that mold. For reasons I have explained at length, I do not think the Politico Dobbs leak was designed to shift votes. Rather, the intent of leaking the entire opinion was to destroy the Court. And so far, the leak has been successful.
In light of this taxonomy, the Politico Dobbs leak hits the trifecta. It was announced well before the term concluded. It provided the actual draft opinion, rather than speculation about where the case is headed. And it immediately blew up, and created a firestorm in the media. No wonder the Chief Justice thought this act was such a betrayal. Still, other leaks caused harm to the Court. Indeed, I think the failure to adequately recognize, and address these spate of leaks helped pave the way for what Politico did. The leaks in NFIB, Bostock, and other OT 2019 cases went unpunished. It is utterly surprising then that the leaks were amplified by orders of magnitude for Dobbs. I realize I sound like a broken record, but the Chief's failure of leadership to at least acknowledge Biskupic's leaks two years ago helped bring us to this present moment.
I hope there are no future Supreme Court leaks, but this taxonomy may be helpful to characterize them.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
The Supreme Court is not destroyed. Unprincipled as all get out, but not destroyed.
Once again, the lawyer has the wrong people. In defamation, you sue the false statement maker. All the real damage comes from other people. Sue them.
In this leak, the leaker promoted open government. The damage is from violent feminists. Investigate and arrest them.
Livestream all utterances at the Supreme Court. End its Star Chamber proceedings. Impeach Justices for decisions.
I respect Josh's academic productivity. I respect Eugene's record setting IQ. That makes my disappointment all the greater, more painful and traumatic. They are unable to see what is self evident to ordinary people like me.
Alito and family had to be moved from home in a manner of the Witness Protection Program. Alito has to live on the run, instead of crushing the violent feminists.
What with substantive due process guaraotenties under attack, how long will it be until Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1954), and its progeny applying an equal protection guaranty vis-a-vis the federal government comes under attack? Chief Justice Warren there opined:
Id., at 499-500. After all, opposition to de jure segregation is not objectively, deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition. Quite the contrary.
Excuse me. That should be substantive due process guaranties.
Substantive Due Process was made up shit to justify Dred Scott. That decision was delusional, lawless, and super toxic. It set off the Civil War. Only Procedural Due Process is real in the Fifth Amendment.
Don’t forget the privileges and immunities clause of the 14th Amendment, Mr. Behar.
not guilty — A superficial read of the Alito draft leads me to suspect that when its citations are examined closely, the, "history and tradition," part of the argument will collapse into a smoking pile of rubble.
It literally already has.
The obvious problem being that nobody can do anything when a SCOTUS Justice deliberately lies in their reasoning.
I was wondering what type of logical cartwheels we would be seeing from Josh as it came more and more obvious that conservatives are the ones doing the leaking (particularly today’s story that explicitly cites conservative sources). And with his new “taxonomy”, he does not disappoint.
Which story is that?
This one, probably.
That comment indicates One America, Stormfront, and The Crusader have not picked up the Post's reporting yet.
Hey now! Save some material for your 100 page law review article (co-authored by Prof. Seth Tillman).
The leak is not Robert’s fault. The reason for the leak was the historic nature of the decision. Dobbs is likely going to be a landmark decision and it is very controversial. Same as the ACA leak. That decision was also was very controversial.
The impact of the leak will be minimal. No one is going to change their vote in Dobbs over some protests. And the leak will not significantly harm SCOTUS. It certainly goes against string cultural norms and should not have been done. But it doesn’t and won’t matter much.
One thing seems sure: If Josh ever gets hired by the Court in some capacity, the place will become a colander.
That does seem likely. I'd say another thing is pretty clear, though.
He types really fast.
Perhaps he dictates to a staff of stenographers, automated or otherwise. Because it opens so many comical possibilities to view, I prefer, "otherwise."
“Rather, the intent of leaking the entire opinion was to destroy the Court.”
^^^Has no idea who leaked the draft but definitely knows the motivation behind the leak.^^^
So full of it.
I wonder what the motivations behind these leaks were…?
https://mobile.twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1523336583495122945
Also telling that he thinks the Court is capable of being destroyed by this. If the Court is that weak of an institution, that it depends on maintaining a myth about the sacred confidential "legal" decision-making process to maintain its own legitimacy to the public, maybe it deserves to be destroyed.
I doubt there is anything wrong with the Court that enlargement won't solve.
Should better Americans position Chief Justice Roberts as the swing vote, or should they relegate him to leader of the minority bloc? That might be the most important question in American law today.
Arthur, you've been beating that enlargement drum for a year and a half now. How come it hasn't happened?
A hick from West Virginia and a goof from Arizona. That is a problem that can be solved, especially as the American electorate improves (less religious, less rural, less bigoted, less backward, more diverse),.
Did you genuinely need to have that explained? Did you attend rural and/or religious schools?
>it depends on maintaining a myth about the sacred confidential "legal" decision-making process to maintain its own legitimacy to the public
How many divisions does SCOTUS have?
Is a taxonomy a measurement tool? Is someone who purports to measure with a taxonomy just a tool?
I think the leak was by the conservatives. I also think that at least one justice knows the leaker. Just the old prosecutor in me. I don't think it will destroy the Court but will hurt its credibility. And that the leak may have been for a good cause.
i really enjoy all the articles on this blog., Josh is a wonder.