that trust or that belief is gone forever
Thomas called the leak "tremendously bad" and expressed concern about the long-term stability of institutions undermined by such breaches. The leak of the February draft signaling the court's intent to overturn Roe violated an unwritten rule Thomas said was once considered unthinkable.
- Draft opinion leaked in early May, written in February, signaling intent to overturn Roe v. Wade
- Thomas called the leak 'tremendously bad' and expressed concern about institutional stability
- Senate failed to advance abortion protection legislation, with all 50 Republicans and Sen. Joe Manchin voting against it
- Final Supreme Court decision on abortion expected within weeks
Justice Clarence Thomas says the leak of a draft Roe v. Wade overturn opinion has permanently eroded trust in the Supreme Court and fundamentally changed the institution.
Justice Clarence Thomas stood before an audience in Dallas and spoke about a wound he believed would not heal. The leak of a draft Supreme Court opinion in early May, revealing the court's intention to overturn Roe v. Wade, had done something he considered almost unimaginable: it had shattered an assumption that had held the institution together for generations.
Thomas described what the court had once been. There was a time, he said, when the very idea of someone leaking even a single line from a draft opinion would have seemed impossible—not because of locks or security protocols, but because of something deeper. The justices and their staff operated within a culture so bound by the rule of law, so committed to the court's mission, that such a breach existed beyond the realm of what anyone would even imagine doing. It was, in his words, verboten. Unthinkable.
Then it happened. In February, someone leaked a draft majority opinion written by Thomas himself, signaling that five justices were prepared to overturn the 1973 decision that had legalized abortion nationwide. The leak became public in early May, and Thomas found himself confronting a fundamental rupture. "Look where we are," he said during remarks at an event hosted by the American Enterprise Institute, the Manhattan Institute, and the Hoover Institution. The trust that had once seemed permanent was gone. And when that trust vanishes from an institution like the Supreme Court, he argued, the institution itself is transformed in ways that cannot be undone.
Thomas did not mince words about the severity of what had occurred. He called the leak "tremendously bad"—language that carried the weight of someone watching something precious deteriorate. But his concern extended beyond the immediate breach. He voiced a broader anxiety about the trajectory of American institutions themselves. "I wonder how long we're going to have these institutions at the rate we're undermining them," he said. The question was not rhetorical. He was genuinely uncertain whether the structures that held the country together could survive the damage being inflicted upon them. "And then I wonder when they're gone, or they are destabilized, what we will have as a country. And I don't think that the prospects are good if we continue to lose."
This was Thomas's second public appearance in which he had grappled with the leak's fallout. Earlier in the month, speaking to lawyers and judges at the 11th Circuit Judicial Conference, he had made oblique references to "unfortunate events" without directly naming the breach. But in Dallas, he was more explicit, more direct about what the leak had cost.
As Thomas spoke, the Supreme Court was preparing to issue its final ruling on abortion. A decision was expected within weeks. Meanwhile, the Senate had just failed to advance legislation that would have protected abortion rights at the federal level, with all 50 Republicans and Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia voting against it. The political landscape was hardening around the court's anticipated move, and Thomas was left to contemplate what his institution had become—and what it might become next.
Notable Quotes
The institution that I'm a part of operated on a belief in the rule of law so strong that leaking even one line of an opinion would have seemed impossible. That trust is now gone forever, and when you lose that trust, it changes the institution fundamentally.— Justice Clarence Thomas
I wonder how long we're going to have these institutions at the rate we're undermining them. And then I wonder when they're gone, what we will have as a country.— Justice Clarence Thomas
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
When Thomas says the leak has changed the institution "fundamentally," what does he mean by that? Is it just about security?
No, it's deeper than that. He's saying the court operated on an unwritten covenant—a shared belief that the work was bigger than any individual's ambition or grievance. The leak broke that covenant. Once it's broken, you can't just repair it with better locks.
But institutions leak things all the time. Congress, the executive branch. Why is this different for the Supreme Court?
Because the Supreme Court's legitimacy doesn't rest on force or elections. It rests almost entirely on the perception that the justices are above politics, that they're bound by law and principle rather than self-interest. The leak suggests someone inside didn't believe that anymore—or didn't care.
Thomas sounds genuinely worried about whether institutions can survive this. Is he being alarmist?
He's expressing a real concern, though you could debate whether it's proportionate. But listen to what he's actually saying: he's not worried the court will disappear. He's worried about what happens to a country when the institutions that hold it together lose their moral authority.
Does Thomas bear any responsibility here? He wrote the draft opinion that was leaked.
That's a fair question, but it's separate from his point. He's not defending the opinion itself—he's mourning the breach of confidentiality that exposed it. Whether you agree with his reasoning on abortion, the institutional damage is real.
What does he want to happen now?
He doesn't say explicitly. But the implication is clear: he wants whoever leaked it found and held accountable, and he wants the court to somehow restore the trust that's been lost. The problem is, he seems to understand that trust, once shattered, doesn't simply return.