A new breach of confidentiality has shaken the Supreme Court, revealing internal memos from the contentious 2016 battle over President Obama’s Clean Power Plan. These documents, intended to remain private for decades, offer a rare glimpse into the intense deliberations that led to a pivotal 5-4 ruling halting the climate regulation.
The leaked memos detail a five-day period of urgent exchanges among the justices as they wrestled with whether to issue an unprecedented stay of the Clean Power Plan – Obama’s ambitious effort to reduce carbon emissions from power plants by 32% by 2030. The plan’s potential impact loomed large over the court’s discussions.
Chief Justice Roberts and other conservative justices voiced strong concerns that allowing the plan to proceed before full legal review would inflict “substantial and irreversible” damage on the nation’s power sector. They argued the economic consequences demanded immediate intervention.
The memos reveal a stark divide, with liberal justices advocating against the stay. Ultimately, however, the court sided with the conservatives, issuing the emergency order that blocked the Clean Power Plan. This decision is now widely considered a key moment in the evolution of the Court’s “shadow docket” – its expedited process for emergency rulings.
This latest leak is not an isolated incident. The Supreme Court has experienced a disturbing increase in breaches of confidentiality in recent years, and a pattern has emerged: the leaks disproportionately target conservative justices. The 2022 leak of the draft opinion in the *Dobbs* case, which ultimately overturned *Roe v. Wade*, remains unsolved despite an internal investigation.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has recently been a vocal critic of the Court’s use of the emergency docket, describing its decisions as sometimes “utterly irrational” and lacking clear explanation. She argued that such rulings erode public trust in the judicial system.
During a speech at Yale Law School, Justice Jackson expressed concern that the fast-paced nature of these emergency decisions can lead to poorly considered outcomes, potentially “greenlighting harmful acts” without adequate justification. Her comments highlight the growing tension surrounding the Court’s use of this expedited process.
Chief Justice Roberts has previously condemned leaks as “absolutely appalling” and a betrayal of trust, yet no leaker has ever been publicly identified or held accountable. The Court has yet to release an official statement regarding this most recent breach, leaving many to question the security of its internal deliberations and the integrity of its processes.
