How rare is a Supreme Court breach? Very rare

The Washington Post reported on the internal wrangling of the justices during the time when the decision was being made. The Post story that appeared days after the justices ordered a second round of arguments was attributed to anonymous informed sources and did not quote any draft opinions or internal memos.

In 1979 ABC News Supreme Court correspondent Tim O Brien went on air with reports predicting the outcome of two decisions that were days away from release. The Government Printing Office employee who was in charge of setting type for the court's rulings was transferred to a different division after the Chief Justice launched an inquiry into whether anyone at the court had violated protocol. The staffer denied leaking anything.

Some legal analysts believed that the justices had leaked their deliberations before the Supreme Court upheld the individual mandate.

Sources predicted that Justice Anthony Kennedy would vote to strike down the mandate, which was cited by conservative columnist Avik Roy.

There was speculation that the court's chief was on the fence after a floor speech by Sen. Patrick Leahy urging John Roberts to rule the mandate constitutional.

George Will and National Review both called for Roberts to not side with liberal justices who are expected to back the mandate.

The reports were inspired by a whisper campaign based on indications from people inside the court, but most of the commentary gave no direct indication of insider information.

Roberts sided with the liberals in a vote that upheld the mandate, but he did so by interpreting it as a tax.

The court was considering whether a longstanding federal law against sex discrimination in employment also prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

After the case was argued, the Wall Street Journal warned that Roberts and Neil Gorsuch might side with liberals in favor of the broad interpretation of the law.

The headline on the editorial read, "Kagan tries to lure Gorsuch and Roberts off the Scalia method."

The Journal editorial and a similar National Review article were published in the same place.

Maybe a conservative justice complained to a friend that Kagan was winning. Let us hope, wrote Koppelman on the website.

The unusual final line-up in the case tracked with what those commentators predicted, as Roberts and Gorsuch both sided with the court's liberal justices in a 6-3 decision. The court's majority opinion was written by an appointees of President Donald Trump.

South Texas College of Law Professor Josh Blackman said the reports surrounding the LGBT-rights and Obamacare cases appeared to reflect leaks from the court and were intended to cause not-so-subtle pressure campaigns and counter-campaigns targeting justices perceived to be astray.

These sorts of leaks are harmful to the court. They need to stop, according to Blackman.

Tea-leaf reading about pending Supreme Court cases is based on public orders and acts of the court. Some commentators picked up on a hint that Roberts might not be writing a majority opinion in the case.

Justices don't assign more than one majority opinion from a given two-week argument sitting. The majority opinion in the case limiting the damages available to people suing for discrimination on the basis of disability was released by the court on Thursday. The day before the Mississippi abortion dispute, that case was heard.

The University of Michigan Law Professor said that the Chief Justice was not assigned the opinion.

An editorial from the Wall Street Journal expressed concern that Roberts might try to turn the court to the left. A conservative courtwatcher was led to suspect a leak from the court by the Journal editorial.

The inner workings of the court have been driven by leaks or perceived leaks from Supreme Court law clerks.

Over the past five decades, various accounts by journalists, authors and the clerks themselves have triggered passionate debate about the scope of confidentiality duties.

The first book to give the public an in-depth, behind-the-scenes look at the court was published in 1979. They appeared to have done extensive background interviews with clerks and gained access to some of the justices' working papers.

Edward Lazarus, a former law clerk to Justice Harry Blackmun, caused controversy in 1998 when he published "Closed Chambers," the first account of the epic struggles inside the Supreme Court.

The book set off a heated debate in legal circles, with then-9th Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski declaring that he had nothing but contempt for Lazarus and a legal ethics expert, Richard Painter, suggesting that Lazarus should be prosecuted.

Those arguments were rejected by Lazarus.

In a letter to the Journal, the former Blackmun clerk said that the portion of his book that Mr. Painter identifies as suspect is based on the public record. He doesn't offer legal or factual support for this outrageous charge.

A prominent Supreme Court litigator rallied to the side of Lazarus and insisted that there were no breeches of confidence in the book.

At the University of Southern California, Chemerinsky was the dean of the law school. Clerks were sworn to a lifetime of silence about their work at the high court.

The debate generated by Lazarus's book, even more, is an excellent vehicle for reconsidering the Supreme Court secrecy.

No action was taken against Lazarus despite the furor.

A law clerk was accused of leaking the outcome of cases to Wall Street traders in order to make quick money, because of the grave violations of Supreme Court confidentiality that came just over a century ago.

The Justice Department said that the source of leaks in business-related cases handed down in 1919 related to a wartime ban on liquor distilling and so-called patents allowing railroads to use particular lands was a long time clerk to Justice Joseph McKenna.

The only matter where someone financially benefited from leaking inside information at the Supreme Court is the case of the Ashton Embry case, according to the current 9th Circuit Judge John Owens.

The investigation and prosecution of Embry was complicated by the lack of insider trading laws at the time. Embry was never brought to trial because he was charged with defrauding the United States.

According to Owens, the criminal case fell apart due to problems with an unreliable source who became erratic and later disappeared.

Some members of the court give favored academics the chance to review the files of sitting justices. The terms of those arrangements are not always clear.

Justices don't generally open their papers up for wide use while they are still sitting on the court, but they have more hidden than not.

The justices argue that confidentiality is important to the high court.

Wermiel said that they think it will chill their deliberations with one another and their candor and willingness to be open in exchange of views. The court's most enduring work is its opinions.

Some say that the only thing that matters is the law, which negates the historical value. The professor said that was their view.

On rare occasions, a justice will give an unexpected preview of the outcome of a case.

During oral arguments on a Trump-era immigration policy this February, Justice Stephen Breyer mentioned that red states had the same claim of standing as we had just allowed. The high court had not made a decision in the Kentucky case. It did so eight days later, ruling 7-1, as many others had predicted.