Bill Overview
Title: Stop Supreme Court Leakers Act of 2022
Description: This bill establishes new federal crimes 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. Additionally, property involved in a violation or attempted violation, or which constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to a violation, is subject to civil forfeiture.
Sponsors: Sen. Cassidy, Bill [R-LA]
Target Audience
Population: Supreme Court employees and officers
Estimated Size: 1000
- The bill involves Supreme Court officers and employees.
- The target population appears to be those who might have access to and the ability to leak confidential information.
- Given that the Supreme Court is a single entity, the number of employees and officers who might be impacted is relatively small.
Reasoning
- The primary group affected by this policy is the employees and officers of the Supreme Court of the United States, a relatively small group given the institution's size.
- Given the selective impact on these employees, the effect on the general U.S. population's wellbeing is likely negligible, with more notable impacts limited to those who work closely with confidential information.
- Wellbeing changes will likely concern job security, perceptions of freedom, workplace stress, and procedural transparency.
- However, there might also be indirect effects on legal professionals, clerks, and others in related fields through changes in workplace culture at comparable institutions.
- The budget likely covers administrative implementation costs and enforcement at the Court, not broadly affecting financial aspects for the individuals themselves.
Simulated Interviews
Supreme Court Clerk (Washington D.C.)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I understand the need for confidentiality, but criminalizing leaks feels extreme. It adds pressure to an already high-stakes environment.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Legal Analyst (New York)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As an outsider looking in, this policy might deter valuable insights from becoming public, which often enriches legal discourse.
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 |
Supreme Court Administrator (Washington D.C.)
Age: 51 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 1/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy adds a necessary layer of caution but increases administrative burden. Training and enforcement will be crucial.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Judicial Clerk (Chicago)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy sets a precedent for other judicial institutions, potentially affecting future work environments.
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 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Retired Justice (Los Angeles)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This act is a step back for transparency, possibly lead to a more opaque judiciary which isn't ideal.
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 |
Supreme Court Reporter (Dallas)
Age: 40 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Will likely make it more difficult to obtain inside insights, affecting depth of journalism.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Supreme Court Advocate (San Francisco)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy might promote further trust within the Court, but at the cost of external transparency.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Court IT Specialist (Boston)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- There's an increase in security measures, improving job relevance but adding stress.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Public Defender (Philadelphia)
Age: 44 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The Court already seems distant. This might make it even more opaque to public defenders like me.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Judicial Assistant (Miami)
Age: 30 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Process adherence will tighten, potentially improving procedural accuracy but at the cost of increased pressure.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $2500000 (Low: $1000000, High: $5000000)
Year 2: $2500000 (Low: $1000000, High: $5000000)
Year 3: $2500000 (Low: $1000000, High: $5000000)
Year 5: $2500000 (Low: $1000000, High: $5000000)
Year 10: $2500000 (Low: $1000000, High: $5000000)
Year 100: $2500000 (Low: $1000000, High: $5000000)
Key Considerations
- Financial impact of the bill is minimal due to its narrow focus.
- Could present costs associated with cultural change or training at the Supreme Court.
- Enforcement of compliance might require some investment in oversight or investigatory procedures.