In a recent article, the Washington Examiner noted how America's highest judicial body "is generally secretive about its opinions and decisions."

However, that fact did not prevent several Supreme Court rulings from being inadvertently leaked to the public several days before their intended release.  

Leak blamed on an "apparent software malfunction"

According to the Examiner, an "apparent software malfunction" was cited as the explanation for why some of the Supreme Court's order were released on Friday instead of Monday as had been planned.

Steve Vladeck serves as a professor at Georgetown University Law Center, and he told CNN that the premature disclosure was not "a great look" for the Supreme Court.

"Accidents happen, and the court should be encouraged to provide more access to its rulings, like the email notification service that apparently caused today’s glitch," Vladeck was quoted as saying.

"That said, this is the second high-profile premature release of rulings in the last year," the legal academic went on to point out.

"Whether it’s a sign that the court is juggling too many balls at once or a symptom of some other problem, it’s not a great look for an institution the authority of which depends so profoundly on public confidence," he stressed.

Supreme Court rules in two DOGE-related cases

Not all of the rulings put out on Friday were unintentionally released, and the Examiner reported that two of them concerned the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

In one of them, a majority of the justices concluded that DOGE is entitled to information from the Social Security Administration.

The ruling states that DOGE staffers should have "access to the agency records in question in order for those members to do their work" of eliminating government waste and fraud.

The decision was met with a dissenting opinion from liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who questioned why the Supreme Court had intervened on an emergency basis.

DOGE not subject to FOIA

"In essence, the ‘urgency’ underlying the government’s stay application is the mere fact that it cannot be bothered to wait for the litigation process to play out before proceeding as it wishes," she wrote.

In another case, the justices determined that DOGE is not subject to disclosure requirements under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), thus reversing an April decision by United States District Judge Christopher Cooper.

"The portions of the district court’s April 15 discovery order that require the government to disclose the content of intra–executive branch USDS recommendations and whether those recommendations were followed are not appropriately tailored," the opinion read.