The question here is who believed they would benefit from leaking the opinion itself. That document was much more likely to rally liberals than conservatives. It brought home the fact that the court was poised to overrule Roe in much more concrete terms than merely leaking the vote. The opinion is also a full-throated attack on abortion rights and \u2013 with important caveats \u2013 substantive due process rights more broadly. And as a first draft \u2013 without the benefit of later refinement \u2013 it does not yet present the critique of Roe in its most persuasive form.<\/p>\n
It is also important to look at the leak of the opinion through the lens of the fact that someone \u2013 almost certainly a conservative \u2013 had just before leaked the court\u2019s tentative decision and the state of the voting to The Wall Street Journal. That leak was itself an extraordinary and unethical breach of confidences and certainly caused very deep concern inside the court.<\/p>\n
My guess is that someone on the left felt somewhat justified in releasing the opinion in response. Through the opinion, one would see what the Journal was saying Kavanaugh and Barrett were considering. That leak was a historically unprecedented violation of the deepest and most solemn trust among the justices and the court\u2019s staff. It wounded the institution.<\/p>\n
Read it all<\/a>.<\/p>\n How the unprecedented Supreme Court leak may have been a response to an earlier disclosure about the justices' private deliberations. @TomGoldsteinSB<\/a> on what it all means for the court and its secrets. https:\/\/t.co\/cms77T5KI4<\/a><\/p>\n — SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) May 5, 2022<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n \n