Stop Supreme Court Leakers Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Sen. Cassidy, Bill [R-LA]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Mar 26, 2025
Bottom line
The bill establishes new criminal penalties for Supreme Court employees and officers who leak confidential information, aiming to prevent unauthorized disclosures and protect the Court's internal deliberations.
What it actually does
This bill amends title 18 of the United States Code to create a new federal crime for officers and employees of the Supreme Court who knowingly disclose unauthorized confidential information. It defines various types of confidential information, including draft opinions, internal notes, and communications, and establishes criminal penalties, including imprisonment for up to 10 years or a $10,000 fine for specific violations, and includes these offenses under criminal forfeiture provisions.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that this bill is essential to protect the integrity and independence of the Supreme Court's deliberative process. They contend that unauthorized leaks undermine public trust, politicize judicial decisions, and can expose justices and staff to undue pressure. Establishing clear criminal penalties will act as a strong deterrent, ensuring that sensitive information remains confidential until officially released.
Opponents contend
Critics might argue that while confidentiality is important, the bill's broad definition of 'confidential information' and severe penalties could stifle legitimate whistleblowing concerning misconduct or ethical breaches within the Court. They may also raise concerns about the potential for the Chief Justice to unilaterally designate information as confidential, which could be seen as an overreach or a tool to suppress information that is in the public interest.
The bill is short and clearly written, making it highly accessible for a reader to understand its core provisions and implications within a few minutes.
Section 2(a), new 18 U.S.C. § 1522(a)
Definition of Confidential Information
This provision defines 'confidential information' to include a broad range of internal Supreme Court materials. Specifically, it covers internal notes on cases, communications between Justices and staff, communications among staff on pending matters, draft or final opinions before public release, personal information of Justices not legally public, and any other information designated confidential by the Chief Justice prior to a violation.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that a clear and comprehensive definition of confidential information is necessary to prevent ambiguity and ensure that all sensitive materials related to the Court's deliberations are protected. The inclusion of the Chief Justice's designation power allows for flexibility in protecting emerging forms of sensitive information.
Critics contend
Critics may contend that the definition is overly broad, particularly the clause allowing the Chief Justice to designate any other information as confidential. This could potentially be used to shield information that, while internal, might be of legitimate public interest or concern, thereby limiting transparency and accountability.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the need for judicial secrecy and the protection of internal deliberative processes against concerns about potential overreach in classifying information and limiting public insight into the Court's operations.
Section 2(a), new 18 U.S.C. § 1522(b)
Prohibition on Unauthorized Disclosure
This section makes it unlawful for any Supreme Court officer or employee to knowingly publish, divulge, disclose, or make known any confidential information, as defined in subsection (a), in any unauthorized manner or extent during their employment or official duties.
Section 2(a), new 18 U.S.C. § 1522(c)
Criminal Penalties for Disclosure
This provision outlines the criminal penalties for violating the disclosure prohibition. Generally, individuals who violate or conspire to violate the prohibition face imprisonment for up to 10 years and a fine. However, if the violation specifically involves internal notes (as described in subsection (a)(1)), the penalty is a $10,000 fine.