Skip to content
Subscribe

Evaluating the Supreme Court Leak

Published:

In an article published on July 1, CBS described the process of how John Roberts flipped from his expected position to supporting the individual mandate and the Supreme Court campaign to bring him back into the conservative camp. The Court is notoriously tight-lipped. Even in their deliberations, clerks and secretaries are kept waiting outside while the nine justices argue the outcome of each case.

What is described in the article is a setting where John Roberts was going to vote to strike down the individual mandate with the rest of the conservative Justices on the Court while the public expected Justice Kennedy to be the deciding vote. Following his decision to uphold the mandate, the remaining four Justices, led by Justice Kennedy tried desperately to change his mind during a month-long campaign to bring him back to his original position.

What is more interesting about the article is the Supreme Court leak. What is said behind closed doors within the Supreme Court is very closely guarded. The press and the public is left to speculate as to the discussions that lead to decisions made by the Court and how internal politics operate on a regular basis. Having an inside source describing the process in which the Chief Justice is courted by other members of the bench is extremely rare.

This is rare is because of the consequences. A current clerk or secretary that is discussing internal operations with the press is making career-ending statements. This would be especially true when the source is still working for the Court. Former clerks have made statements about decisions several years down the road. But, fresh law school grads dropping information into the media stream is almost unheard of and foolish for any employee of the Court.

The proximity to the decision and the anonymity of the source sheds some doubt on the story and its accuracy. The first question of any Supreme Court leak should be: How would they know?

The question of why Roberts switched is still up in the air and we may never know why he flipped sides or what compelled him to do so. This is the answer that I'd be most curious about, but I don't have any expectation of hearing that any time soon.

Adhere to the IVN etiquette

By posting a comment, you agree to adhere to our etiquette rules: No partisan attacks, no personal attacks, substantiate your sources, no self-promotion.

Contact IVN

Questions about this article or our coverage? Send us a message. A free IVN member account is required.

Message sent

Thanks, we’ll review it and get back to you if needed.

Message not sent

Sorry, something went wrong. Please try again.

Sign in to send a message

Messages are tied to your IVN member account. Signing in is free and takes a few seconds.

Contact IVN

Questions about this article or our coverage? Send us a message. A free IVN member account is required.

Message sent

Thanks, we’ll review it and get back to you if needed.

Message not sent

Sorry, something went wrong. Please try again.

Sign in to send a message

Messages are tied to your IVN member account. Signing in is free and takes a few seconds.

Republish this article

Republishing guidelines

Republish IVN articles for free. Independent Voter News articles may be republished online or in print under a Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 4.0 license, on these terms:

  1. Credit the author and IVN. Keep the byline ("By Author Name, Independent Voter News") and the attribution note at the end, which links to the original.
  2. Keep the meaning. You may update time and place references and apply your house style. You may trim for length, as long as the cuts don't change the meaning or misrepresent the author. Keep the headline. Mark any additions as your own (for example "Additional reporting by ...").
  3. Translations are welcome. Translate faithfully, add "Translated from English by [your outlet]", and tell us at editor@ivn.us.
  4. Keep the links, including the link to the original article.
  5. Keep the tracking image. The HTML includes a 1-pixel image that counts readers on your page. It collects no personal information.
  6. Photos and illustrations. Images credited to IVN may be used with this article only. Images credited to others (AP, Getty, Unsplash, Wikimedia and so on) stay under their owners' terms. Secure the rights or switch "Include images" off.
  7. Don't sell it. You can't sell our articles or sell ads specifically against them. Your normal site advertising is fine.
  8. No implied endorsement. Don't suggest that IVN or the author endorses you, your candidates or your causes, or that donations to you support IVN.
  9. Keep labels. Opinion or analysis pieces keep that label.
  10. Point search engines to the original. Where your CMS allows, set the canonical URL to the original IVN article.
  11. No bulk or automated republishing, and don't submit our articles to aggregators (Apple News, Google News, MSN) as your own.
  12. Corrections and removals. Update your copy when we correct it, and remove it promptly if we ask. We'll contact you at the email you give us.
  13. Questions or print republication: editor@ivn.us.

IVN staff: fill in who you're inviting above, then create the invite.

Preparing the article

Evaluating the Supreme Court Leak

Choose a format
  • HTML
  • Email HTML
  • Markdown
  • Formatted (.docx)
  • Plain text
  • WordPress blocks
  • PDF
Choose a platform

Photos credited to others need their owners' permission.

To for

Republishing somewhere else? Questions? editor@ivn.us