The Dobbs Leak: Three Years Later, One Name Still Lingers in the Shadows

The Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization marked a turning point in American jurisprudence, but its judicial significance was overshadowed by an unprecedented event: the leak of a draft opinion weeks before the ruling was finalized. Never before had such a breach occurred in the modern history of the Court. The disclosure, which confirmed the Court’s intent to overturn Roe v. Wade, sent political shockwaves across the country and set off protests, security threats, and even an assassination attempt against Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Despite an extensive investigation, the identity of the leaker remains officially unknown. Yet, among the many names that have surfaced in speculation, one stands out for a conspicuous reason: Amit Jain. Unlike nearly every other Supreme Court clerk from that term, Jain has never publicly commented on the matter, a silence that raises more questions than it answers.

From the moment Politico published the leaked draft, speculation was rampant about who had facilitated such an extraordinary breach. Theories varied along ideological lines. Some believed a liberal insider leaked the opinion to ignite public backlash and pressure the Court to reconsider its decision before finalization. Others speculated that a conservative sympathizer may have released the document to lock in the five-justice majority. Yet, despite these competing narratives, Justice Samuel Alito, the author of the leaked opinion, has all but confirmed that the leak was politically motivated to harm the conservative bloc. In an interview, Alito stated that the leak “made us targets of assassination” and hinted that it was intended to intimidate the Court into preserving Roe. Given this context, the question persists: who stood to gain from such an act?

The Supreme Court conducted a formal investigation, interviewing nearly 100 individuals with access to the draft. The results, however, were inconclusive. The final report from the Marshal of the Court indicated that no definitive leaker could be identified. Yet, outside observers noted something peculiar: nearly all clerks and staff from the 2021-22 term were either publicly exonerated by implication or made statements denying involvement. All except for one: Amit Jain, a former clerk for Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

Jain, a graduate of Yale Law School, had a history of progressive activism. As a student, he had openly opposed Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s appointment to the Supreme Court, signing a public letter condemning Yale for supporting Kavanaugh’s nomination. His background made him an obvious subject of speculation. More notably, Jain had a documented connection to Politico reporter Josh Gerstein, one of the two journalists who broke the Dobbs leak story. Years earlier, Gerstein had quoted Jain in an article regarding immigration policy. The connection was circumstantial but sufficient for some conservative commentators to consider him a potential suspect.

Despite this attention, Jain has never publicly addressed the leak. This silence is striking given that other clerks have either explicitly denied involvement or have been effectively cleared by the investigation’s findings. Even if Jain was uninvolved, his refusal to comment remains unusual. A simple public statement denying participation would, in theory, dispel at least some of the speculation surrounding him. Instead, his absence from the conversation has only fueled further scrutiny.

While Jain himself has moved on—he now works as an attorney in private practice—his name remains the only one in widespread circulation as a potential leaker. This is not an idle accusation; it is a reflection of the strange vacuum left by his silence. If he were innocent, one might reasonably expect him to say so. Instead, three years after the most significant leak in Supreme Court history, Jain remains the only clerk from that term who has not been publicly cleared or spoken in his own defense.

Beyond the question of who leaked the document, the consequences of the breach were severe. The Supreme Court was immediately thrust into an environment of distrust and heightened security risks. The leak led directly to heightened protests outside justices’ homes, ultimately culminating in the foiled assassination attempt on Justice Kavanaugh. In June 2022, a California man armed with a gun and burglary tools was arrested near Kavanaugh’s home. He later admitted he had traveled across the country with the intent of killing the justice, citing the leaked Dobbs opinion as a motivating factor. This stark reality underscored the dangers of exposing draft opinions to public scrutiny before their official release.

Institutionally, the Supreme Court was forced to adopt stringent new security measures. Internal operations were altered to prevent future leaks, and trust among justices and clerks was severely damaged. Where once justices operated under an assumption of confidentiality, the specter of another breach now looms over their deliberations. Some have argued that this erosion of trust will have long-term consequences for the Court’s ability to function as an independent institution insulated from external pressures.

Public confidence in the Court has also suffered. In the immediate aftermath of the Dobbs leak, trust in the Supreme Court fell to historic lows. Polling data showed a sharp decline in approval ratings, with many Americans viewing the Court as more politically polarized than ever. While some of this erosion was undoubtedly tied to the controversial nature of the Dobbs decision itself, the breach exacerbated concerns about the Court’s integrity. The perception that confidential deliberations could be disrupted by ideological operatives has fueled ongoing debates about judicial ethics and transparency.

The enduring mystery of the Dobbs leak is more than just a whodunit—it is a cautionary tale about the politicization of the Supreme Court and the consequences of breaching its internal processes. Three years later, the question of who was responsible remains open, but the absence of one name from the chorus of denials and explanations is impossible to ignore. Amit Jain’s silence does not prove guilt, but in the realm of public accountability, the refusal to deny an accusation can sometimes be as telling as an admission. Until the leaker is definitively identified, the cloud of suspicion will persist, and the Supreme Court will continue to grapple with the ramifications of a breach that fundamentally altered its operations and public standing.

If you don't already please follow @amuse on 𝕏 and subscribe to the Deep Dive podcast.