By Andrew Chung

(Reuters) – Experts say the leakage of a draft U.S. Supreme Court opinion that would invalidate the Constitution right to abortion was a major breach of confidentiality and has heightened stakes in a politically charged case.

Politico released Monday’s draft majority opinion, stating it had won the decision to strike down Roe v. Wade 1973. The landmark decision gave women the legal right to have an abortion anywhere in the country. This was an indication that the court’s conservative 6-3 majority was willing to show its strength.

Although the content of the draft was praised by anti-abortion Republicans and conservatives, and condemned by abortion rights advocates as well as Democrats, most court watchers dismissed the leak itself. They said that it was rare, but not unusual.

They anticipated chaos within the court and unexpected consequences. Because of its longstanding tradition for confidentiality and trust around its deliberations, the institution is able to remove itself from political branches.

The Supreme Court, unlike Congress and the White House, which are subject to leaks and used by political operatives in their efforts to push their agendas, prefers to keep its internal discussions private.

Neal Katyal, an ex-acting U.S. Attorney General, said that this is “the equivalent of the Pentagon Papers leaked, but at Supreme Court”. In a Twitter post (NYSE:), Solicitor General said that he argued often before the court. This was in reference to documents secret U.S. on Vietnam War that were published by New York Times, 1971

“It is impossible to underestimate the earthquake it will cause within the court, both in terms of the destruction trust between the justices’ and staff,” wrote SCOTUSblog.

‘MASSIVE VIOLATION’

It is an egregious violation of established norms to leak a draft opinion. It doesn’t happen,” said Dan Epps of Washington University, St. Louis. He added that it is likely the perpetrator would be “someone who is unhappy” with the court’s actions.

Ilya, who is a Georgetown University Law Center Lecturer, stated that the leaker “is someone on the left engaged with civil disobedience” but called it “inexcusable, and threatens to disrupt the court’s functioning.”

Many commentators believe the person who leaked this draft was trying to stir up public enthusiasm to get the justices to their minds, or to get progressive voters to vote in the Nov. 8 congressional election. Others disagree and say the leaker could be a clerk, or even a judge, who sympathizes.

This person might be worried (in a somewhat crazy way) about locking down the majority of the population, and would even consider leaking in order to achieve that goal,” Joseph Fishkin of the University of California Los Angeles said.

Jonathan Peters, an associate professor of law at the University of Georgia School of Law, said that it is not the first occasion when opinions have been released before they were intended to be. According to Peters, the New York Tribune had reported on the 1852 case that involved the Wheeling and Belmont Bridge Company a few days before the court made its decision.

Peters observed that some other leaks commented upon decisions following their release, or on the personal relationships of justices.

National Public Radio reported January 19th that the justices were being asked to use masks because of a rise in COVID-19-related infections. Neil Gorsuch, however refused to do so. This prompted a court denial.

Some observers suggested that this controversy could distract the court from its decisions on abortion rights.

Rick Hasen, a law professor, said that the new development helps Roe v. Wade’s majority by deflecting comment to court secrecy norms breach and “lessening blow by setting expectations.”