Breaking News
Get Actionable Insights with InvestingPro+: Start 7 Day FREE Trial Register here
Investing Pro 0
Ad-Free Version. Upgrade your Investing.com experience. Save up to 40% More details

Leaked draft abortion ruling a major blow to Supreme Court, experts say

World May 03, 2022 02:30AM ET
Saved. See Saved Items.
This article has already been saved in your Saved Items
 
© Reuters. Protestors react outside the U.S. Supreme Court to the leak of a draft majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito preparing for a majority of the court to overturn the landmark Roe v. Wade abortion rights decision later this year, in Washington, U.S

By Andrew Chung

(Reuters) - The leak of a U.S. Supreme Court draft opinion that would overturn the constitutional right to abortion is a major breach of confidentiality that has heightened the stakes in an already politically-charged case, experts say.

Politico on Monday night published a draft majority opinion that it had obtained striking down the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, which guaranteed the right to abortion nationwide. It was a sign that the court's 6-3 conservative majority was ready to flex its muscle.

While the substance of the draft sparked praise from anti-abortion conservatives and Republicans and condemnation from abortion rights advocates and Democrats, many court watchers blasted on the leak itself as a rare if not unprecedented occurrence.

They predicted chaos inside the court and unpredictable consequences, whose longstanding tradition of confidentiality and trust surrounding its deliberations helps lend the institution its remove from the political branches of government.

Unlike the White House and Congress, where leaks are a regular fact of life and a tool of political operatives trying to advance their agendas, the Supreme Court typically keeps its internal deliberations private.

"This is the equivalent of the Pentagon Papers leak, but at the Supreme Court," Neal Katyal, a former acting U.S. Solicitor General, who argues frequently before the court, said in a Twitter (NYSE:TWTR) post. He was referring to secret U.S. documents on the Vietnam War published by the New York Times in 1971

The widely followed SCOTUSblog wrote on its Twitter account: "It's impossible to overstate the earthquake this will cause inside the court, in terms of the destruction of trust among the justices and staff."

'MASSIVE VIOLATION'

"Leaking a draft opinion is a massive violation of settled norms. It just doesn't happen," tweeted Dan Epps, a professor of law at Washington University in St. Louis, adding that the culprit likely "would be someone who is upset" about what the court is doing.

Ilya Shapiro, a lecturer at the Georgetown University Law Center, posted that the leaker is "someone on the left engaged in civil disobedience" and called the leak "inexcusable and threatens the court's functioning."

While a number of commentators said the person who leaked the draft is probably seeking to whip up public fervor to change the justices' minds or get progressive voters to the polls for the Nov. 8 congressional midterm elections, others disagreed, asserting the leaker might be someone - a clerk or even a justice - who sympathizes with the majority.

Such a person would be "worried (in a slightly crazy way) about locking that majority down, and willing to take the extreme step of leaking to advance that goal," said Joseph Fishkin, a professor at the University of California Los Angeles.

This is not the first time an opinion has been leaked before its intended release, according to Jonathan Peters, a law professor at the University of Georgia School of Law. He said that the New York Tribune reported the outcome in an 1852 case involving the Wheeling and Belmont Bridge Company 10 days before the court issued the decision.

Peters noted that other leaks have commented on decisions after their release or on personal relationships and conflicts among the justices.

In January National Public Radio reported that due to a surge in COVID-19 infections the justices had been asked to wear masks but only Neil Gorsuch refused, prompting a denial by the court.

Some observers said that the controversy, which is certain to persist, could distract from the court's actions on the right to abortion.

Law professor Rick Hasen said the development actually helps the majority that overturns Roe v. Wade by deflecting commentary to breach of court secrecy norms and by "lessening the blow by setting expectations."

(The story is refiled to correct wording in first paragraph)

Leaked draft abortion ruling a major blow to Supreme Court, experts say
 

Related Articles

Add a Comment

Comment Guidelines

We encourage you to use comments to engage with other users, share your perspective and ask questions of authors and each other. However, in order to maintain the high level of discourse we’ve all come to value and expect, please keep the following criteria in mind:  

  •            Enrich the conversation, don’t trash it.

  •           Stay focused and on track. Only post material that’s relevant to the topic being discussed. 

  •           Be respectful. Even negative opinions can be framed positively and diplomatically. Avoid profanity, slander or personal attacks directed at an author or another user. Racism, sexism and other forms of discrimination will not be tolerated.

  • Use standard writing style. Include punctuation and upper and lower cases. Comments that are written in all caps and contain excessive use of symbols will be removed.
  • NOTE: Spam and/or promotional messages and comments containing links will be removed. Phone numbers, email addresses, links to personal or business websites, Skype/Telegram/WhatsApp etc. addresses (including links to groups) will also be removed; self-promotional material or business-related solicitations or PR (ie, contact me for signals/advice etc.), and/or any other comment that contains personal contact specifcs or advertising will be removed as well. In addition, any of the above-mentioned violations may result in suspension of your account.
  • Doxxing. We do not allow any sharing of private or personal contact or other information about any individual or organization. This will result in immediate suspension of the commentor and his or her account.
  • Don’t monopolize the conversation. We appreciate passion and conviction, but we also strongly believe in giving everyone a chance to air their point of view. Therefore, in addition to civil interaction, we expect commenters to offer their opinions succinctly and thoughtfully, but not so repeatedly that others are annoyed or offended. If we receive complaints about individuals who take over a thread or forum, we reserve the right to ban them from the site, without recourse.
  • Only English comments will be allowed.

Perpetrators of spam or abuse will be deleted from the site and prohibited from future registration at Investing.com’s discretion.

Write your thoughts here
 
Are you sure you want to delete this chart?
 
Post
Post also to:
 
Replace the attached chart with a new chart ?
1000
Your ability to comment is currently suspended due to negative user reports. Your status will be reviewed by our moderators.
Please wait a minute before you try to comment again.
Thanks for your comment. Please note that all comments are pending until approved by our moderators. It may therefore take some time before it appears on our website.
Comments (2)
Elezabeth Thomas
Elezabeth Thomas May 14, 2022 11:34AM ET
Saved. See Saved Items.
This comment has already been saved in your Saved Items
Ever Forward; there is no privacy anywhere for anyone. Focus on cyber security issues everywhere.
gab nea
gab nea May 04, 2022 7:17AM ET
Saved. See Saved Items.
This comment has already been saved in your Saved Items
the court is now more politically charged than the case. I dont know how the judges can do their jobs with this lack of confidence. thank you again moscow mitch!
 
Are you sure you want to delete this chart?
 
Post
 
Replace the attached chart with a new chart ?
1000
Your ability to comment is currently suspended due to negative user reports. Your status will be reviewed by our moderators.
Please wait a minute before you try to comment again.
Add Chart to Comment
Confirm Block

Are you sure you want to block %USER_NAME%?

By doing so, you and %USER_NAME% will not be able to see any of each other's Investing.com's posts.

%USER_NAME% was successfully added to your Block List

Since you’ve just unblocked this person, you must wait 48 hours before renewing the block.

Report this comment

I feel that this comment is:

Comment flagged

Thank You!

Your report has been sent to our moderators for review
Continue with Google
or
Sign up with Email