(WASHINGTON) — The Justice Department on Monday announced a new indictment charging Enrique Tarrio, the chairman of the extremist far-right group the Proud Boys, and four other members with seditious conspiracy — marking the second such indictment alleging coordination leading up to the Jan. 6 riot by individuals allegedly pledging to use violence to disrupt the peaceful transition of power.
All the individuals named in the 32-page indictment, including Tarrio, had previously faced conspiracy charges related to their involvement in planning to disrupt Congress’ certification of Joe Biden’s victory.
The other members charged include Ethan Nordean, who assumed leadership of the Proud Boys on Jan. 6 as Tarrio was ordered to stay out of Washington, Joseph Biggs, Zachary Rehl and Dominic Pezzola — whois accused of initiating the first breach of the Capitol by smashing windows with a stolen police riot shield.
The indictment follows news from last April that another senior member of the Proud Boys, Charles Donohoe, reached a plea agreement and agreed to cooperate with prosecutors against the group.
The Justice Department previously charged 11 members of the Oath Keepers militia group with seditious conspiracy in January, including the group’s founder Stewart Rhodes.
Three senior members of the group have pleaded guilty in the case since the indictment was returned and agreed to cooperate with DOJ’s investigation — the remaining members have all pleaded not guilty.
(WASHINGTON) — Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg said Monday that he’s tested positive for COVID-19 and is “experiencing mild symptoms.”
“I plan to work remotely while isolating according to CDC guidelines, and look forward to when I can safely return to the office and the road,” Buttigieg, 40, tweeted.
I have tested positive for COVID-19 and am experiencing mild symptoms. I plan to work remotely while isolating according to CDC guidelines, and look forward to when I can safely return to the office and the road.
— Secretary Pete Buttigieg (@SecretaryPete) June 6, 2022
(NEW YORK) — As the midterm election approaches, most Americans say that the economy, inflation and rising gas prices are the most important issues in determining how they will vote for Congress this November, according to a new ABC News/Ipsos poll.
With inflation on the rise since last fall, Americans have been significantly affected by the rising cost of goods and services. And, more than eight in 10 Americans (83%) now say that the economy is either an extremely or very important issue in determining how they will vote, in the latest ABC News/Ipsos poll conducted using Ipsos’ KnowledgePanel.
In the poll, 80% of Americans say that inflation is also an extremely or very important factor in how they will vote and for gas prices, it is 74%.
Joe Biden’s approval ratings for his handling of these key issues are all well underwater, suggesting trouble for the president and Democratic candidates ahead of the midterm. Only 37% approve of Biden’s handling of the economic recovery, and even fewer approve of his handling of inflation (28%) and gas prices (27%).
Friday, Biden spoke about the May jobs report, which saw 390,000 jobs added and unemployment remained at 3.6%, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Even though Biden said the latest jobs report was “excellent,” he acknowledged that many Americans are still worried about the economy.
“I know that even with today’s good news, a lot of Americans remain anxious, and I understand the feeling,” Biden said.
Biden’s highest approval rating is for his handling of the COVID-19 pandemic (56%), which is now among the least important issues to Americans, according to the ABC News/Ipsos poll.
In an April ABC News/Ipsos poll, there was a 20-point gap between Republicans and Democrats in enthusiasm to vote this November, with 55% percent of Republicans saying they were very enthusiastic about voting compared to 35% of Democrats. That gap has narrowed somewhat in this poll, but Republicans still enjoy a significant advantage with 57% saying they are enthusiastic about voting compared to 44% of Democrats.
The poll also found that gun violence (72% saying extremely or very important) and abortion (63%) are also potentially important drivers of the vote. As the nation waits to see if the Supreme Court will overturn Roe v. Wade and Congress considers legislation in the wake of the mass shootings in Buffalo, New York and Uvalde, Texas, these issues stand just below the top tier drivers of the vote.
These figures also demonstrate that while rising inflation and gas prices may be the primary factors pushing people to vote this election cycle, gun violence and abortion are also growing in importance in the mind of voters.
A separate question asking what the single most important issue will be in their vote for Congress showed a similar ranking of issue priorities. The top issues were inflation (21%), the economy (19%), gun violence (17%) and abortion (12%).
Meanwhile, 70% think that enacting new laws to reduce gun violence should be a higher priority than protecting the right to own a wide variety of guns (29%). The last time this question was asked, in March 2021, 66% said enacting new laws to reduce gun violence should be the higher priority.
Thursday, Biden addressed the American people following a string of mass shootings across the country and said that if members of Congress do not act, they will be voted out.
“If Congress fails, I believe this time a majority of the American people won’t give up. I believe the majority of you will act to turn your outrage into making this issue central to your vote. Enough,” Biden said.
Congress will hold hearings this week to address the gun violence epidemic in the country as pressure mounts on legislatures to take action to combat the rise of mass shootings.
This ABC News/Ipsos poll was conducted using Ipsos Public Affairs‘ KnowledgePanel® June 3-4, 2022, in English and Spanish, among a random national sample of 542 adults. Results have a margin of sampling error of 4.8 points, including the design effect. Partisan divisions are 28-26-40 percent, Democrats-Republicans-independents. See the poll’s topline results and details on the methodology here.
ABC News’ Dan Merkle and Ken Goldstein contributed to this report.
(WASHINGTON) — President Joe Biden’s administration is working to fortify the economy amid steep inflation with efforts to shore up the supply chain and “invest in the capacity, both physical and human, of our economy to keep up with demand,” Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg said Sunday.
“The president has made clear inflation is his top economic priority, and he’s laid out a very clear strategy for doing that,” Buttigieg told “This Week” anchor George Stephanopoulos.
Buttigieg said the administration will “continue to take the steps that are both on the price side and on the growth side to keep our economy strong.”
A new ABC News/Ipsos poll shows the economy and inflation are top of mind for voters ahead of the 2022 midterms. Only 37% of Americans approve of Biden’s handling of the economic recovery, according to the poll.
The current inflation rate is at 8.3%, according to the most recent data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. An updated number will be released on Friday.
Buttigieg said on “This Week” that the president has proposed “a number of things” to help improve the economy that could be passed by Congress, including lowering the costs of insulin, child care and housing.
These measures “would make a difference no matter what’s happening macroeconomically,” Buttigieg argued. “We would make life easier for Americans who are facing these economic question marks.”
Gas prices — at a record-high after increasing for months — are also a concern. Heading into the summer travel season, the current nationwide average is about $4.84 per gallon.
About two months ago, Biden announced plans to release 1 million barrels of oil per day from the strategic petroleum reserve, saying at the time that he expected this to bring down gas prices.
But Stephanopoulos on Sunday pressed Buttigieg, saying the move “hasn’t made any difference at all.” He asked: “Was that a failure?”
“I don’t think it’s correct to say it hasn’t made any difference at all,” Buttigieg responded. “This is an action that helped to stabilize global oil prices.”
“The action the president took around ethanol, introducing additional flexibility there, that’s having an effect on prices in the Midwest,” he continued. “But we also know that the price of gasoline is not set by a dial in the Oval Office. And when an oil company is deciding, hour by hour, how much to charge you for a gallon of gas, they’re not calling the administration to ask what they should do. They’re doing it based on their goal of maximizing their profits.”
In early April, oil executives testified before Congress, disputing the argument that they are price gouging consumers. They claimed the situation is complex and that in the near term, increasing the supply of oil and natural gas could help.
Amid an increase in gun violence and several recent mass shootings, the president has also renewed his call for new gun control legislation, which has long been resisted by congressional Republicans who say it would violate gun rights. In remarks delivered Thursday night, Biden urged raising the age to buy assault weapons to 21, strengthening background checks, banning high-capacity magazines and other measures.
Stephanopoulos asked Buttigieg, former mayor of South Bend, Indiana, “If you were still mayor of South Bend right now, what would you be doing?”
“We have a horrific scourge of gun violence in this country,” Buttigieg said.
As mayor, he explained, he would do what he could on the local level. “But you’re also looking at Washington to say, ‘Will anything be different this time?'”
“Will we actually acknowledge the reasons why we are the only country, the only developed country where this happens on a routine basis?” Buttigieg said. “And the idea that us being the only developed country where this happens routinely — especially in terms of the mass shootings — is somehow a result of the design of the doorways on our school buildings is the definition of insanity, if not the definition of denial.”
(COLUMBIA, S.C.) — South Carolina’s Tom Rice was one of 10 House Republicans who voted to impeach former President Donald Trump for inciting the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.
Now, as Rice fights an uphill battle for his political life in the heart of Trump country, he is standing by that choice — calling it “the conservative vote” in an interview with ABC News Chief Washington Correspondent Jonathan Karl that aired Sunday on “This Week.”
“I did it then. And I would do it again tomorrow,” Rice said.
Rice said Trump deserved to be impeached for potentially endangering former Vice President Mike Pence and his family at the Capitol and not acting more quickly to stop the deadly riot as it unfolded last year.
“When he watched the Capitol, the ‘People’s House,’ being sacked, when he watched the Capitol Police officers being beaten for three or four hours and lifted not one thing or to stop it — I was livid then and I’m livid today about it,” Rice recalled. “And it was very clear to me I took an oath to protect the Constitution.”
Rice said Trump deserved to be impeached for potentially endangering former Vice President Mike Pence and his family at the Capitol and not acting more quickly to stop the deadly riot as it unfolded last year.
“When he watched the Capitol, the ‘People’s House,’ being sacked, when he watched the Capitol Police officers being beaten for three or four hours and lifted not one thing or to stop it — I was livid then and I’m livid today about it,” Rice recalled. “And it was very clear to me I took an oath to protect the Constitution.”
He also warned his party against rallying around the former president if Trump seeks the Oval Office again, as Trump has often hinted.
“I think it will hurt us,” Rice said. “We’ll get painted more in the corner of extremism, they’ll try to label us as extremist. And he’ll feed that.”
Rice criticized Republicans, including GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy, of California, for quickly embracing Trump in the weeks after the Capitol attack.
He declined to say whether McCarthy should be speaker if Republicans win back the House in November.
“I’m not gonna answer that one right now,” he told ABC’s Karl. “We’ll see what happens.”
Rice praised Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., who also voted to impeach Trump and now serves as the vice chair of the Jan. 6 committee, calling her a “real Republican.” Like Rice, Cheney drew Trump’s wrath for criticizing him and is contending with her own primary challenge.
“She’d be a great speaker,” Rice said. “She is very conservative and I think she’s a fearless leader.”
But before November, Rice needs to defend his seat in Congress on June 14, when he’ll face off against six other candidates — including Trump-endorsed state Rep. Russell Fry — for the Republican nomination.
The crowded field makes it unlikely that any of the candidates will win more than 50% of the vote and avoid a runoff later this month between the top two finishers, Jerry Rovner, the Republican party chairman in Rice’s district, told ABC News.
Rovner, who is officially neutral in the primary but critical of Rice’s position on impeachment, said Rice’s vote could be a “major problem with a lot of constituents” given Trump’s popularity in the area.
“He could vote 800 times the way they [want him to] vote, but the one thing he voted on that got the press, they were very upset about,” Rovner said of Rice. “And that’s really what it comes down to.”
Rice’s balancing act was on full display at a recent forum in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, where some voters who had previously supported him walked out when he defended his impeachment vote.
“He’s a traitor, and I just don’t trust him,” Lyne Vail told ABC News. “If you can’t back your party, he’s not going to back you or me.”
Billy Zevgolis, a Myrtle Beach businessman and undecided voter, said he also disagreed with Rice’s impeachment vote.
“Right now, Trump is our guy,” he told ABC News. “I don’t like his personality, but his politics are right on the money. His values are aligned with mine.”
Rice hopes he can convince enough voters to overlook his stance on Trump’s impeachment even if they don’t agree with it. He could also benefit from the state’s open primaries, which allow Democrats and independents to vote in the GOP race.
Even if he loses, Rice has “absolutely” no regrets, he said.
“You know that, like your obituary, the first sentence is going to be ‘Tom Rice, who was a Republican member of Congress, voted to impeach Donald Trump,’” Karl told him.
“So be it,” he said. “I’ll wear it like a badge. So be it.”
(HARRISBURG, Pa.) — Hedge fund manager David McCormick conceded the Republican Senate primary in Pennsylvania to celebrity TV Dr. Mehmet Oz.
McCormick announced the decision on Friday, cutting short a recount process of the May 17 contest.
“I am so proud of what we’ve accomplished this campaign,” McCormick said. “We saw a historic turnout in the Republican primary and I’m proud to say 419,000 or so Republican voters who put their faith in my campaign.”
The Pennsylvania primary was one of the most competitive races to watch so far this midterm election cycle. McCormick and Oz were separated by less than 1,000 votes on Election Day, triggering Pennsylvania law that a recount be conducted if a candidate’s margin of victory is 0.5% or less.
The recount began last week and needed to be completed by June 7. The final results were expected to be announced on June 8.
“We spent the last 17 days making sure that every Republican vote was counted in a way that would result in the will of Pennsylvania voters being fulfilled,” McCormick said as he conceded. “That’s what it’s all about, that is what this process is all about.”
“But it’s not clear to me, with the recount largely complete, that we have a nominee,” McCormick continued, “and today I called Mehmet Oz to congratulate him on his victory.”
McCormick said he’ll work to unite Republicans and Pennsylvania behind Oz ahead of the general election.
Oz said he is “tremendously grateful” for McCormick’s promise to help his campaign.
(INSERT TWEET)
Oz shook up the race in late 2021 with the announcement that he was joining the primary field. He then garnered the coveted endorsement of former President Donald Trump in April. Trump had urged Oz to declare victory over McCormick just the day after the May 17 primary, when it was too close to call.
Oz will face off against Pennsylvania Lt. Gov. John Fetterman, who easily won the Democratic nomination last month after suffering a stroke just days before the election.
The Pennsylvania seat, held by retiring Republican Sen. Pat Toomey, is viewed as one of the Democratic Party’s best chances to flip a seat in the 50-50 divided Senate.
Fetterman revealed Friday that he nearly died from the health episode, stating he ignored warning signs for years and “should have taken my health more seriously.” Fetterman underwent surgery on the same day as the Senate primary.
“It’s not something I’m proud of, but it is something I hope that others can learn from,” Fetterman said. “So please: listen to your body, and be aware of the signs. Because ignoring them — and avoiding the doctor because you might not like what they have to tell you — could cost you your life.”
Fetterman said it may take him some time before he’s back on the campaign trail, but that he’ll be “ready” for the November general election.
Oz said Friday, “Now that our primary is over, we will make sure that this U.S. Senate seat does not fall into the hands of the radical left, led by John Fetterman.”
(WASHINGTON) — The Department of Justice will not be prosecuting former Trump officials, chief of staff Mark Meadows and social media director Dan Scavino, for refusing to cooperate with the Jan. 6 committee, according to sources familiar with the correspondence.
The House committee investigating the January 6, 2021 insurrection on the U.S. Capitol previously voted in December 2021 to hold Meadows in contempt of Congress for not appearing before the committee and a criminal referral was sent to the Department of Justice. Meadows provided the committee with over 9,000 records and emails in regards to his activities and communications with former President Trump surrounding the riot but then refused to cooperate further and give a deposition.
The House voted to hold Scavino and former Trump adviser Peter Navarro in contempt in April after they refused to comply with a subpoena to testify before the Jan. 6 committee.
Navarro was indicted by a federal grand jury Friday on two counts of contempt to Congress.
The New York Times first reported that the DOJ would not be pursuing charges against Meadows and Scavino.
Rep. Bennie G. Thompson (D-MS), the chairman of the House Select committee investigating the attack, and Vice Chair Liz Cheney (R-WY) released the following statement on Friday evening. They declared that the indictment of Navarro was the “correct decision,” by the DOJ but did not agree with not pursuing charges against Meadows and Scavino.
“We find the decision to reward Mark Meadows and Dan Scavino for their continued attack on the rule of law puzzling. Mr. Meadows and Mr. Scavino unquestionably have relevant knowledge about President Trump’s role in the efforts to overturn the 2020 election and the events of January 6th. We hope the Department provides greater clarity on this matter,” the statement read.
“If the Department’s position is that either or both of these men have absolute immunity from appearing before Congress because of their former positions in the Trump Administration, that question is the focus of pending litigation. As the Select Committee has argued in District Court, Mark Meadows’s claim that he is entitled to absolute immunity is not correct or justified based on the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel Memoranda. No one is above the law.”
Kremlin Press Office/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — One hundred days after Russia invaded Ukraine, the unexpectedly prolonged conflict has created a political headache for President Joe Biden with no end in sight.
Historic inflation and sky-high prices at the gas pump in the U.S. have driven Biden’s popularity down ahead of midterm elections this fall.
He has to a large degree risked his political fortunes on the outcome of a war that he has pledged he will not send U.S. troops to fight — and which shows no signs of abating.
Russia has made recent gains on the battlefield. Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said Thursday that Russian forces now control 20% of Ukrainian territory.
Biden said Friday that “it appears” there will have to be “a negotiated settlement” to end the war.
“What that entails, I don’t know,” the president said, speaking to reporters in Rehoboth Beach, Delaware. “I don’t think anybody knows at this time.”
But Biden would not say if he thought Ukraine had to cede territory to Russia to achieve peace.
“Nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine,” he said. “It’s their territory. I’m not going to tell them what they should and shouldn’t do.”
The president has succeeded in largely keeping Western allies united, strengthening the NATO alliance in the face of Russia attempts to split it.
But as Russia continues to block Ukrainian food exports and sanctions drive up energy prices worldwide, Biden has found himself in the increasingly difficult position of balancing his desire to stop what he has called Russia’s threat to democracy, with Americans’ rising economic uncertainty.
Russia has also sought to present the conflict as a fight in which the United States is directly involved.
But while Biden insists he will not send American troops to Ukraine, as long as the war continues — and while the U.S. sends Ukraine increasingly sophisticated weaponry — the risk remains that the president could find himself more deeply involved than he wants.
The United States has sent billions of dollars in military and economic assistance to Ukraine. Last month, Biden signed legislation providing $40 billion more over the coming months.
And it has provided intelligence that the Ukrainians have used to target Russian forces.
The U.S. military assistance — combined with aid from other Western nations — have contributed to Ukraine’s successes in fending off the Russian invasion.
The level of weapons systems the U.S. has provided has become more and more advanced over time.
This week, Biden committed to sending even more powerful, longer-range missile systems useful for the battle in eastern Ukraine.
After Russia’s failures early in the war — not taking any major cities and finding itself forced to narrow its aims — it has now made steady progress in the east.
What Vladimir Putin thought might just take a matter of days — conquering all of Ukraine — didn’t happen due to Ukrainian resolve and increasing American help.
But his aggression continues, despite unprecedented heavy sanctions that Biden said would change his behavior — sanctions now in effect for months.
One hundred days in, how Biden’s face-off with Putin ends — and when — is still an open question.
(WASHINGTON) — Former Trump White House adviser Peter Navarro was indicted by a grand jury on contempt of Congress charges Friday for defying subpoenas from the House select committee investigating Jan. 6, the Department of Justice announced.
“Former White House advisor Peter K. Navarro has been indicted by a federal grand jury on two counts of contempt of Congress stemming from his failure to comply with a subpoena issued by the House Select Committee investigating the Jan. 6 breach of the United States Capitol,” the Justice Department said in a release.
(WASHINGTON) — More than 110 days after Justice Samuel Alito authored a first draft opinion that would overturn Roe v. Wade, Supreme Court deliberations over a final ruling have entered a critical phase, four weeks before the justices recess for summer and as an internal probe into a leak of the draft intensifies.
A decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health — the Mississippi case challenging Roe — could come as soon as Monday, but most veteran court watchers expect an opinion rolling back constitutional protection for abortion rights will likely be released in late June.
The unprecedented publication of Alito’s leaked draft last month upended the court’s traditional workflow, an iterative process marked by frank and private exchanges of ideas between justices over the course of months.
“What happened at the court is tremendously bad,” Justice Clarence Thomas said this month of the leak’s impact on court dynamics. “You begin to look over your shoulder. It’s kind of an infidelity.”
Several former Supreme Court clerks, once intimately involved in the opinion drafting process, told ABC News the Dobbs majority opinion — and related concurring and dissenting opinions — are all likely in the midst of tense and frenzied rounds of revision.
“The more everyone else’s temperature goes up, the more Chief Justice Roberts insists on business as usual — even when the building is on fire,” said Sarah Isgur, an ABC News legal analyst. “What that means for Dobbs is not clear at this point.”
How the opinion drafting process works
On Dec. 3, two days after oral arguments in the abortion rights case, the justices met for their scheduled weekly conference when preliminary votes are taken on cases heard that week. Each was asked to weigh in on the central question posed in Dobbs: “Whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional.”
Five conservative justices — with the exception of Chief Justice Roberts — voted ‘no’ at that time, according to the leaked first draft opinion. Justice Thomas, who as the most senior among them had responsibility to assign the majority author, assigned Justice Alito to put their views into writing.
More than two months later, according to the time stamp on the leaked draft, Alito shared with his colleagues a 67-page majority opinion. Legal experts have characterized the document, dated Feb. 10, as an opening bid in the opinion writing process, as it does not reflect any input from dissenting justices and may not reflect input from other justices on Alito’s side of the case, legal experts point out.
Over the past three and a half months, the justices have likely been providing feedback to Alito in the form of electronic and paper memos between chambers, former clerks said. Only around 80 people — the justices, clerks and administrative staff — have access to draft opinions and dissents as they circulate, sources say.
“We had two different computer systems — one for internal materials where draft opinions were held, and another for research through one of the online resources,” said Thiru Vignarajah, a former clerk to Justice Stephen Breyer.
It is not clear how many subsequent draft opinions and dissents may have been circulated to date.
Roberts in a May 3 statement on the leaked Alito draft noted, however, that “it does not represent a decision by the Court or the final position of any member on the issues in the case.”
Revising opinions, changing votes
The Supreme Court says some opinions may be revised a dozen or more times before publication, sometimes including a dramatic shift in vote alignment on the outcome of a case.
“It is a common experience that dissents change votes, even enough votes to become the majority,” the late Justice William Brennan once said, according to the Supreme Court Historical Society.
Roberts famously changed his position several times behind the scenes in 2012 during the first major challenge to the Affordable Care Act. After initially voting to strike down the heart of the law — the individual insurance mandate — and uphold the law’s expansion of Medicaid, Roberts ultimately flipped on both late in the drafting process, CNN’s Joan Biskupic, the Chief’s biographer, reported at the time. The shift narrowly saved the ACA.
While most legal analysts expect the Court will uphold Mississippi’s 15-week ban on abortions at the center of the Dobbs case — and in turn, rollback nearly 50 years of precedent, as reflected in the Alito draft — the scope of the ruling and its legal rationale could still be in flux behind the scenes.
“There may be people that after they read [Alito’s opinion] say, I don’t really agree with that, or it’s not as strong an argument as I thought, and so they may decide to write separately [in a concurrence],” said Rachel Barkow, vice dean of NYU Law School and a former clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia.
“Sometimes people take an even more extreme position and say, I was wrong. I thought I was going to vote to uphold this law, but I can’t do it, so I’m going to join the dissent, or I’m going to wait and see what the dissent has to say and see which one is better,” Barkow said.
Chief Justice Roberts, who has long signaled opposition to Roe and its reasoning, notably did not join the majority in the initial vote on Dobbs and has reportedly been lobbying fellow conservatives to join him in taking a narrower approach than the one advanced by Alito.
Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer have all previously supported constitutional protection of a woman’s right to end a pregnancy before a fetus is considered viable outside the womb, around 24 weeks. They are certain to author a vigorous dissent.
Barkow said draft dissenting opinions will likely seek to pressure the majority justices by calling out alleged inconsistencies, flawed reasoning, and overlooked impacts of their decision.
“Each side goes back and forth until everybody feels like they’re ready to release the decisions. That’s why we wait so long,” Barkow said. “The justices are usually very respectful of each other in terms of hearing the feedback, giving the other side time to respond to the extent they want to, and it’s only when everyone agrees that an opinion is ready to go out.”
Publication and release of opinions
Complicating the process in major cases is the likelihood that each justice will want to write an individual opinion — concurring or dissenting — to emphasize a special point. Those drafts are circulated along with the majority opinion and primary dissent and can evolve over time.
The Dobbs decision is also overshadowed by an ongoing internal investigation into how a first draft of the Alito opinion was leaked to Politico. The probe, ordered by Chief Justice Roberts and led by Court Marshal Army Col. Gail Curley, has strained relations inside the court and exacerbated divisions around one of the most contentious cases in years, several justices and court insiders have said publicly.
When all revisions are complete, traditionally before the end of the court’s term on June 30, a master proof of the opinions is sent to the Court’s Reporter of Decisions for final processing before release.
The Reporter writes a summary of the ruling — called a “syllabus” — and copy edits the text of the opinions before having physical copies of the case documents printed, a step that can take several additional days after a decision is technically finalized.
Prior to the pandemic, the justices would announce decisions in-person from the Supreme Court bench. Today, the releases happen electronically on the court’s website not long after physical printing is complete. It is not publicly known in advance which cases will be decided on a designated opinion release day.
