By Andrew Chung

(Reuters). Experts claim that the disclosure of a U.S. Supreme Court draft opinions that would invalidate the constitutional right of abortion is a significant breach of confidentiality.

Politico published Monday night a draft majority opinion stating that it obtained the striking down of the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. This landmark decision guaranteed abortion rights nationwide. This showed that the court’s 6-3 conservative majority was open to exercising its muscles.

The draft’s substance received praise from Republicans and anti-abortion activists, while Democrats and abortion rights advocates condemned it. However, court watchers saw the leak as an unusual but not unheard of event.

They foresaw chaos at the court, and unpredicted consequences. The institution’s longstanding tradition in confidentiality and trust surrounds its deliberations and helps it to be removed from politics.

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) said, “This is the equivalent to the Pentagon Papers leak but at the 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 was widely read by SCOTUSblog, who wrote: “It is impossible to overstate how much this will cause within the court in terms of the destruction trust between the justices’ and staff.”

‘MASSIVE VIOLATION’

A draft opinion can be withdrawn at any time, which is against settled norms. 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 Shapiro is a Georgetown University Law Center lecturer. She posted that the leaker was “someone on left engaging in civil disobedience”. The leaker called it “inexcusable” and threatened the functioning of the court.

Many commentators believe the leaker of the draft was trying to stir up public enthusiasm to get the justices to reconsider their minds, or to elect progressive voters for the Nov. 8, congressional midterm elections. Others disagree and say the leaker could be a clerk, or even a judge, who sympathizes fully with the majority.

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 from the University of Georgia School of Law says that this isn’t the first instance of an opinion being leaked prior to its release. 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 pointed out that others have leaked information about decisions made after they were released or personal relationships between justices.

National Public Radio reported January 19th that the court had asked the justices to put on masks because of a rise in COVID-19-related infections. Neil Gorsuch, however refused and the court denied the request.

Some observers claimed that controversy over abortion could be distracting from court decisions regarding the right to abort.

Rick Hasen, law professor at the University of Texas said that Roe V. Wade was overturned by the majority. He claimed the developments deflected commentary from breaches of court secrecy norms. And by “lessening it by setting expectations.”

(The story has been rewritten to the correct form in the first paragraph.