Chief Justice John Roberts has implemented mandatory nondisclosure agreements for Supreme Court employees, marking an unprecedented response to a series of damaging leaks that have rocked the nation's highest court. According to a report by The New York Times citing five unnamed sources familiar with the Court's inner workings, Roberts began requiring staff to sign the agreements in November 2024.
The decision comes after what the Times described as "a series of unusual leaks of internal court documents, most notably of the decision overturning the right to abortion, and news reports about ethical lapses by the justices." The reference appears to point to the May 2022 leak of Justice Samuel Alito's draft opinion in *Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization*, which overturned *Roe v. Wade* and sparked intense public debate before the official ruling was released.
The new nondisclosure agreements build upon what the Times characterized as "softer measures" previously used by the Court "to preserve confidentiality," including codes of conduct and pledges. However, the formalization of these requirements through legally binding agreements represents a significant shift in how the Supreme Court manages internal security and staff conduct.
Former law clerks and legal academics interviewed by the Times said the new NDAs signal that the justices believe they can no longer depend on informal pledges or longstanding institutional norms to protect their internal deliberations from public exposure. This erosion of trust marks a notable departure from the Court's historically secretive culture, which has traditionally operated on an honor system among its small staff.
The Supreme Court has long prided itself on maintaining strict confidentiality around its internal operations. Draft opinions, vote counts, and deliberations among the justices have historically remained closely guarded secrets until official announcements. The Court's ability to maintain this secrecy has been considered essential to the independence of judicial decision-making and the integrity of the deliberative process.
The *Dobbs* leak in particular sent shockwaves through the legal community and prompted an extensive internal investigation. The unprecedented disclosure of a draft majority opinion weeks before its official release drew condemnation from across the political spectrum and raised serious questions about security protocols within the Court. Roberts called the leak a "betrayal of the confidences of the Court" and ordered a comprehensive investigation, though no perpetrator was ever publicly identified.
Beyond the *Dobbs* leak, the Court has faced increased scrutiny over ethical issues involving several justices. Reports about undisclosed gifts, travel arrangements, and potential conflicts of interest have generated calls for enhanced transparency and accountability measures. These revelations have contributed to declining public confidence in the institution and may have influenced Roberts' decision to tighten internal security measures.
The implementation of formal NDAs represents just one aspect of the Court's evolving approach to managing information and maintaining institutional integrity. The agreements likely cover various types of sensitive information, from draft opinions and internal communications to scheduling details and security arrangements.
Legal experts note that while NDAs are common in many professional settings, their use within the Supreme Court raises unique considerations about the balance between institutional secrecy and public accountability. The Court operates as a co-equal branch of government, and some argue that excessive secrecy could undermine democratic oversight and public trust.
The timing of the NDA implementation in November 2024 suggests Roberts acted decisively to address ongoing concerns about information security. The chief justice, who has served in that role since 2005, has generally sought to protect the Court's institutional reputation and maintain its traditional operating procedures.
As the Court continues to handle high-profile cases and face public scrutiny, the effectiveness of these new confidentiality measures will likely be tested. The justices are scheduled to hear arguments on Monday, Feb. 23, for their February sitting, with potential opinion releases beginning Friday, Feb. 20, if the Court follows its typical pattern.
The Court currently has several pending cases on its interim docket, including disputes over California's electoral maps and parental notification policies regarding student gender identity in public schools. These cases, along with the Court's regular docket, will provide the first major test of whether the new confidentiality agreements successfully prevent future unauthorized disclosures.
The development underscores the ongoing challenges facing the Supreme Court as it seeks to maintain its traditional secrecy while operating in an increasingly polarized political environment where institutional norms face regular challenges.