The U.S. Supreme Court building is surrounded by high metal fencing in the wake of a leaked draft opinion that suggests the Court would overturn Roe v. Wade, in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday, May 11, 2022. Photo: Diego M. Radzinschi/ALM The Leak—and Upending 'Roe'—Are Both Wrong
Even while condemning the violation of confidentiality in the leak, we also state our strong disapproval of the tone, the reasoning and above all the result in this apparently early draft of a majority opinion.
May 15, 2022 at 10:00 AM
2 minute read
Like so many others, we were shocked and disappointed by the "leak" of a draft opinion of the United States Supreme Court on the abortion case. The leak of any opinion is more than a breach of trust. In a less prominent matter, a leak can move markets, affect related transactions, or upset settlement discussions at a delicate state. The leak of an early draft poses the additional specter of affecting negotiations among members of the court as they move toward a final result and refine the nuances of the court's rationale. Preliminary votes on opinions have been known to change after drafts of tentative majority and dissenting opinions are circulated by various authors. Independent of what the leak will mean in terms of how the Supreme Court works going forward, it most unfortunately does make it appear—at least to some—that the Supreme Court has become a political entity.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
Judges Say Social Media and Political Polarization Puts Them in Danger
What Judicial Nominations Could Look Like Under a President Harris or Trump
The Future of Arbitrability Disputes in Light of the Supreme Court's Ruling in 'Coinbase'
6 minute read
Trending Stories
- 1State Attorney General Faces Federal Courtroom Test Over Crypto Mining Ban
- 2The Corporate Transparency Act: One Year Later With Deadline Looming
- 3Getting Cameras in Federal Courts Will Take More than Logic
- 4Emerson Electric Opens Wallet to Reward New CLO for Fast Start
- 5Kirkland Hires Real Estate Finance Partners in New York
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
