The bill adds a new federal crime—codified as 18 U.S.C. §1522—that makes it unlawful for any person serving as an officer or employee of the Supreme Court to knowingly disclose certain categories of confidential information obtained in the course of their duties. It lists specific categories (internal notes, communications involving justices, draft opinions, nonpublic personal data of justices) and also allows the Chief Justice to designate additional material as confidential.
For most violations the bill exposes the offender to imprisonment of up to 10 years and fines under Title 18; disclosures limited to internal notes carry a statutory $10,000 fine. The bill also amends the federal criminal forfeiture statute to make violations of the new offense subject to asset forfeiture.
Practically, the measure converts long‑standing secrecy norms around Court deliberations into a distinct federal criminal statute and creates immediate compliance and enforcement implications for Court staff, prosecutors, and news organizations.
At a Glance
What It Does
Creates 18 U.S.C. §1522, defines multiple categories of 'confidential information,' and makes it a federal crime for Supreme Court officers and employees to knowingly disclose such material without legal authorization. The statute separates penalties for most disclosures (up to 10 years' imprisonment and fines) from disclosures limited to internal notes, which carry a $10,000 fine.
Who It Affects
Directly affects officers and employees of the Supreme Court (including clerks and administrative staff), Supreme Court Office management responsible for internal controls, Department of Justice prosecutors, and media organizations that receive or publish leaked materials. It also changes the legal posture for litigants and counsel concerned about confidentiality of deliberative material.
Why It Matters
For the first time Congress would create a tailored federal criminal offense specifically targeting leaks from the Supreme Court and attach forfeiture authority. That changes the enforcement toolkit available to the executive branch and alters risk calculations for insiders, recipients of leaks, and the Court’s internal compliance practices.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill inserts a new section into chapter 73 of Title 18 titled 'Obstruction of Supreme Court deliberations.' That section begins by defining 'confidential information' through a non‑exhaustive list: internal notes taken by employees, communications between justices and employees, internal communications among officers and employees about pending matters, draft or final opinions before public release, nonpublic personal information about the justices, and any other material the Chief Justice designates confidential prior to an alleged violation.
It then makes it unlawful for anyone 'while serving as an officer or employee of the Supreme Court' to knowingly publish or otherwise disclose confidential information obtained in the course of employment unless that disclosure is authorized by law. The required mental state is 'knowingly,' and the prohibition is tied to material that 'comes to' the person through their official duties.On penalties, the statute treats most violations as felonies punishable by up to 10 years' imprisonment and fines under Title 18.
The bill carves out a narrower penalty for the specific category of internal notes: a statutory fine of $10,000 for violating or conspiring to violate that subcategory. Separately, the bill amends the federal criminal forfeiture statute to add the new offense to the list of crimes that can trigger asset forfeiture.The text does not create express exceptions for disclosures to Congress, inspectors general, ethics counsel, or other oversight bodies, nor does it spell out investigative or prosecutorial mechanisms beyond adding the offense to Title 18.
The Chief Justice’s power to designate additional material as confidential is explicit; the bill does not prescribe standards or procedures for that designation. Finally, the prohibition’s operative phrasing—'while serving as an officer or employee'—raises questions about whether disclosures made after employment are covered under the new offense.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill adds a new criminal statute, 18 U.S.C. §1522, titled 'Obstruction of Supreme Court deliberations.', It defines 'confidential information' to include six categories: internal employee notes, communications involving justices, internal communications on pending matters, draft/final opinions before release, nonpublic personal data of justices, and material designated confidential by the Chief Justice.
The statute makes it unlawful for a person serving as a Supreme Court officer or employee to knowingly disclose confidential information obtained in the course of employment unless authorized by law.
General violations (and conspiracies) carry up to 10 years' imprisonment and fines under Title 18; by contrast, disclosures limited to internal notes (the subsection on internal notes) are subject to a $10,000 fine.
The bill amends 18 U.S.C. §982(a)(2)(B) to add §1522 to the list of offenses that can trigger criminal forfeiture.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Designates the statute’s short title as the 'Stop Supreme Court Leakers Act of 2025.' This is purely nominal but is how the measure will be cited in legal and legislative references.
Definition of 'confidential information'
Lists six categories that qualify as confidential—internal notes, communications with justices, internal communications about pending matters, draft or final opinions before public release, nonpublic personal information about a justice, and any other information the Chief Justice designates confidential prior to a violation. Practically, this creates a mixed bright‑line and discretionary definition: several categories are specific, but the Chief Justice designation clause allows the Court to expand the set of protected materials without further legislation.
Substantive prohibition on unauthorized disclosures
Makes it unlawful for anyone 'while serving as an officer or employee of the Supreme Court' to knowingly publish or disclose confidential information received in the course of employment unless authorized by law. The statutory elements are thus: (1) the defendant is a current officer/employee of the Court; (2) the material is confidential as defined; (3) the material 'came to' the defendant through official duties; and (4) the defendant acted knowingly and without legal authorization.
Penalty structure
Sets a general penalty of up to 10 years' imprisonment and fines under Title 18 for violations and conspiracies, while prescribing a $10,000 fine specifically for disclosure of internal notes. The separate treatment of internal notes creates a statutory anomaly: one category of leaks is capped at a monetary penalty while others carry felony exposure.
Criminal forfeiture and housekeeping
Amends the criminal forfeiture provision at 18 U.S.C. §982(a)(2)(B) to include the new §1522, making convictions under the new offense eligible for forfeiture remedies. Also updates the table of contents for chapter 73. Adding §1522 to §982 brings forfeiture into play as a potential remedy in prosecutions under the new statute.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Justice across all five countries.
Explore Justice in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Supreme Court justices — The statute expressly protects their nonpublic deliberative materials and personal nonpublic information, narrowing leak vectors and strengthening confidentiality around internal communications.
- Supreme Court administrative leadership — The Chief Justice’s authority to designate additional materials as confidential gives Court management a direct tool to classify and prevent disclosures of sensitive internal material.
- DOJ prosecutors — The bill supplies a clear federal statute tailored to leaks from the Supreme Court, providing prosecutors with a specific charging option beyond more general statutes.
Who Bears the Cost
- Supreme Court officers and employees (clerks, staff, administrators) — They face new criminal exposure for unauthorized disclosures, potentially including felony sentences; their internal communications and note‑taking practices will require review and compliance processes.
- Journalists and media organizations — Receiving, publishing, or relying on leaks from Court staff could implicate sources and create legal and reputational risk for relationships with insiders; the bill raises legal stakes for handling such materials.
- Court administration and compliance officers — The Court will need to design policies, training, and possibly monitoring practices to prevent covered disclosures; that creates administrative burdens and potential privacy considerations for staff oversight.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between protecting the confidential deliberative process of the Supreme Court—arguably necessary for candid judicial decision‑making—and preserving channels for transparency, whistleblowing, and public accountability; the bill strengthens institutional secrecy while offering no explicit statutory protections for disclosures made in the public interest or to oversight bodies.
The bill presents several implementation and legal tensions. First, the definition of 'confidential information' mixes specific categories with a catch‑all that lets the Chief Justice designate additional material confidential 'prior to' a violation.
That delegation lacks statutory standards or procedures, leaving open questions about how the designation will be used, documented, or reviewed. Second, the statute ties the prohibition to conduct 'while serving as an officer or employee,' which suggests disclosures made after a person leaves Court employment may fall outside the offense—a notable temporal gap that the text does not address.
Another practical tension concerns enforcement and exceptions. The text supplies no express whistleblower or oversight carve‑outs (for disclosures to Congress, inspectors general, ethics counsel, or law enforcement), nor does it define what qualifies as 'authorized by law.' Proving the statute’s elements—whether the material 'came to' an employee in the course of duties, and that a disclosure was 'knowing' and unauthorized—may present evidentiary challenges.
Finally, adding the offense to the criminal forfeiture statute raises proportionality questions where asset forfeiture could attach to a leak conviction, particularly given the statute’s disparate penalty for 'internal notes' versus other confidential material.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.