Another Supreme Court leak to the New York Times is forcing a blunt question Washington hates: who inside America’s highest court is willing to sabotage confidentiality to shape public opinion?
Quick Take
- A December 2024 New York Times report disclosed confidential internal Supreme Court communications about the Court’s new ethics code debate.
- The leaked material included a ten-page memo by Justice Neil Gorsuch opposing enforcement mechanisms, plus remarks attributed to Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.
- Chief Justice John Roberts later required nondisclosure agreements for Court employees and clerks, signaling leadership believed internal controls were failing.
- Public speculation about the source persists, but the available reporting does not identify a leaker or prove which office released the documents.
What Was Leaked—and Why It Matters
Jodi Kantor’s December 2024 New York Times story described internal Supreme Court deliberations over an ethics code, including a ten-page memorandum from Justice Neil Gorsuch that opposed enforcement mechanisms. The report also relayed comments from Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. The practical problem is bigger than any one justice’s view: when internal debates are selectively aired, the Court’s ability to deliberate candidly—without political pressure—gets weaker.
The Supreme Court has historically depended on strict confidentiality so justices can exchange ideas, revise positions, and negotiate legal reasoning without every draft turning into a public messaging war. Recent years have put that norm under strain, most famously the 2022 leak of a draft opinion in Dobbs. The ethics-code leak fits a broader pattern that critics say encourages interest groups and media outlets to treat internal Court documents like political opposition research.
Likely Points of Access: Where Could the Memo Have Been Taken From?
The research points to several plausible access points without proving which one was used. The Office of the Chief Justice is one because the Chief’s counselor, Judge Robert M. Dow Jr., prepared an early draft of the ethics code. Individual chambers are another, especially Justice Gorsuch’s, since his ten-page memo would have originated and circulated from there. Documents could also be handled in clerk offices if materials were shared for editing or review.
The private conference room is mentioned as another possible origin in the research, but it is harder to evaluate from the public record. Even if paper copies were present, removing them would require someone with authorized access at exactly the right time. The New York Times also reportedly spoke with people “inside and outside the court” on condition of anonymity about the proceedings and the justices’ thinking, which suggests access may have involved more than one individual or more than one channel.
Roberts’ Nondisclosure Agreements Signal a Breakdown in Trust
After the ethics-code leak and other disclosures, Chief Justice John Roberts implemented nondisclosure agreements for Supreme Court employees and clerks. That move is significant because it indicates Court leadership believed staff-level controls needed tightening. For conservatives who already distrust elite institutions, the optics are rough: NDAs are the kind of safeguard Americans associate with corporate trade secrets or national security, not with a judiciary meant to project integrity and independence.
At the same time, NDAs cannot solve a central concern raised by commentators: leaks could be coming from a justice rather than a clerk. If that were true, the tools available to the Chief Justice are limited, because the Court is designed to be independent and its members are not managed like executive-branch employees. That structural reality leaves the public with a familiar frustration—real accountability is hard to achieve, even when institutional norms are clearly being violated.
What the Evidence Can—and Cannot—Support About the Leaker
Legal commentator Eugene Volokh, writing at Reason, speculated that Justice Elena Kagan, or “Kagan surrogates,” could be behind the leak pattern, citing consistency with her public criticism of the Court. That claim may be politically resonant, but the available research does not provide proof. No sourcing trail, document chain-of-custody, or corroborated account publicly links any justice or staffer to the New York Times material described in the report.
From Whose Office Could the NYT Have Obtained Classified SCOTUS Memos?https://t.co/oazSpnEsvS pic.twitter.com/QOXtTPHwW5
— Twitchy Team (@TwitchyTeam) April 18, 2026
The strongest fact pattern is narrower: internal communications existed, the New York Times published details about them, and the Court responded by tightening staff confidentiality rules. Beyond that, readers should separate what is confirmed from what is conjecture. The bigger civic concern remains: when the Court becomes a venue for anonymous internal sniping, Americans of all stripes—especially those convinced the “deep state” protects itself—have even less reason to trust that major institutions are acting above partisan games.
Sources:
More Leaks in the NY Times About The ‘Supreme Court Ethics Debate’
What the New York Times Ignored: The Need to Protect the Court from Future Leaks
New York Times Co. v. United States (Oyez case page)
