How the Supreme Court Secretly Made Itself Even More Secretive; The New York Times, February 2, 2026

Jodi Kantor, The New York Times ; How the Supreme Court Secretly Made Itself Even More Secretive

Amid calls to increase transparency and revelations about the court’s inner workings, the chief justice imposed nondisclosure agreements on clerks and employees.

"n November of 2024, two weeks after voters returned President Donald Trump to office, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. summoned employees of the U.S. Supreme Court for an unusual announcement. Facing them in a grand conference room beneath ornate chandeliers, he requested they each sign a nondisclosure agreement promising to keep the court’s inner workings secret.

The chief justice acted after a series of unusual leaks of internal court documents, most notably of the decision overturning the right to abortion, and news reports about ethical lapses by the justices. Trust in the institution was languishing at a historic low. Debate was intensifying over whether the black box institution should be more transparent.

Instead, the chief justice tightened the court’s hold on information.Its employees have long been expected to stay silent about what they witness behind the scenes. But starting that autumn, in a move that has not been previously reported, the chief justice converted what was once a norm into a formal contract, according to five people familiar with the shift."

Ethics Column: When to Recuse or Disclose?; American Bar Association (ABA), December 30, 2024

Hon. W. Kearse McGill , American Bar Association (ABA); Ethics Column: When to Recuse or Disclose?

"When judicial recusal should occur is a perilous topic to discuss these days; in fact, to describe it as perilous may even be an understatement given recent public attention on this topic.  As judges, most of us will become quite anxious if we are hearing a case where our impartiality could be questioned.  What should we consider when this issue presents itself?

As a starting point, we can consider the ethical concept that underpins the issue of recusal or disqualification (while recusal is a judge’s sua sponte withdrawal from a case and disqualification is removal based on a party’s motion or required by statute, both terms are often used interchangeably).  A judge’s ethical duty to recuse arises from the duty to act impartially, which is based in our understanding of procedural due process as a constitutional principle."