Bill Overview
Title: Leaker Accountability Act of 2022
Description: This bill establishes a new federal crime for the unauthorized disclosure of confidential information by officers or employees of the Supreme Court. Specifically, the bill prohibits an officer or employee of the Supreme Court from knowingly publishing, divulging, disclosing, or making known in any manner or to any extent not authorized by law any confidential information coming to that officer or employee in the course of the employment or official duties of that officer or employee. A violation is subject to criminal penalties—a fine, a prison term of up to five years, or both.
Sponsors: Rep. Johnson, Mike [R-LA-4]
Target Audience
Population: Officers and employees of the U.S. Supreme Court with access to confidential information
Estimated Size: 500
- This bill directly targets officers and employees of the Supreme Court who handle confidential information as part of their official duties.
- The Supreme Court comprises nine Justices, but there are also clerks, administrative staff, and other individuals who may have access to confidential information.
- Estimating conservatively, the number of Supreme Court employees and officers could be around 500, given various support roles such as clerks, security, and administrative personnel.
- Globally, the impact is limited only to the United States as the bill concerns the U.S. Supreme Court.
Reasoning
- The policy directly affects a very limited group of individuals, estimated to be around 500 people who are officers or employees of the Supreme Court with access to confidential information.
- Most of the U.S. population will be unaffected by this policy, as they are not part of this very specific group and do not work in capacities affected by this bill.
- Among the Supreme Court employees, only a fraction might handle truly confidential legal documents regularly, perhaps narrowing the target group further to clerks, some administrative staff, and legal Aides.
- The Cantril wellbeing scores will be mostly impacted for those directly subject to the new legal obligations and pressures due to potential risks of penalties including fines and imprisonment.
- For these employees, the perceived pressure and legal oversight may impact their mental health and stress levels, reflected potentially in lower wellbeing scores.
Simulated Interviews
Supreme Court clerk (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm quite focused on ensuring I follow all protocols, but this adds another layer of stress in handling sensitive information.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Administrative support (Silver Spring, MD)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't usually handle sensitive documents, but it's good to be aware of these legal changes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Legal research aide (Arlington, VA)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy won't make much difference in my day-to-day, as my role doesn't include handling confidential files.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Supreme Court justice assistant (Alexandria, VA)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While I'm always cautious, this policy makes me a bit more wary of unintended disclosures.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Security personnel (Baltimore, MD)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Security is my focus, not information handling, so this act isn't something I worry about much.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
IT support specialist (Fairfax, VA)
Age: 36 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As long as I follow security protocols, this policy doesn't add pressure for me.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Court janitorial staff (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 20/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This act doesn't affect my work at all. I'm here to keep the place clean.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Clerk's office manager (Richmond, VA)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm always ensuring compliance, but the additional accountability is burdensome.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Junior legal clerk (Falls Church, VA)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Sometimes I deal with case summaries, but I don't see this impacting me directly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Court archivist (Dover, DE)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Given the historical nature of what I handle, I foresee no immediate personal impact.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $2500000 (Low: $1500000, High: $4000000)
Year 2: $2600000 (Low: $1600000, High: $4200000)
Year 3: $2700000 (Low: $1700000, High: $4400000)
Year 5: $2900000 (Low: $1800000, High: $4800000)
Year 10: $3100000 (Low: $2000000, High: $5200000)
Year 100: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $8000000)
Key Considerations
- The policy primarily targets a small, specific group within the U.S. Supreme Court, maintaining focused enforcement costs.
- Potential legal challenges to the bill could incur significant government expenses not estimated here.
- The policy might have limited, if any, macroeconomic impacts given the small group it directly affects.