Following a leak of a judicial decision and memo favoring Donald Trump, Chief Justice John Roberts has mandated that court staff sign legally binding non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) to protect internal deliberations.

This shift came just weeks after The New York Times cited confidential memos on Trump's immunity from prosecution. The policy, confirmed by five sources, was introduced alongside growing public criticism of the court's lack of transparency.

As reported by The Daily Beast, new hires are now required to sign these contracts, which threaten legal action for breaches. The move represents a significant change in how the Supreme Court handles internal information and staff obligations.

Roberts Tightens Grip on Court Secrecy

Now, let’s dig into why this matters. The Supreme Court isn’t just any institution—it’s the last bastion of trust for many Americans tired of political games. But with record-low public confidence and leaks piling up, Roberts seems to be saying enough is enough.

For years, Roberts treated the court like a close-knit family, relying on informal chats and a written code to maintain secrecy. He’d lecture clerks each term and hand out guidelines stressing “duties of complete confidentiality, accuracy, and loyalty.” But those days of gentle reminders are over.

Back in the late 1990s, clerks signed confidentiality pledges after a tell-all book rattled the court, though those weren’t legal NDAs. Compare that to today’s ironclad contracts—Roberts is clearly done with half-measures. This isn’t just a policy tweak; it’s a signal of deeper cracks.

Leaks and Trust Fuel Drastic Measures

The tipping point? Multiple leaks, from the 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson draft that flipped abortion rights to bitter internal spats over Idaho’s abortion ban and toothless ethics rules. These aren’t just embarrassing—they’re eroding what’s left of the court’s mystique.

Then came the leaked memo pushing broad immunity for Trump, a decision many saw as a necessary shield against partisan witch hunts. Roberts’ response wasn’t to open the curtains for the woke crowd demanding transparency—it was to double down on secrecy. Good for him; some things aren’t meant for public consumption.

Mark Fenster, a law professor from the University of Florida, called this switch to formal contracts “a sign of the court’s own weakness” and a collapse of internal unity. He’s not wrong, but let’s be real—when the left-leaning media is salivating over every scrap of gossip, what choice does Roberts have?

Transparency or Protection: The Real Debate

The timing couldn’t be sharper—critics are howling for more openness just as Roberts slams the door shut. They argue the court’s conservative tilt, approving most of Trump’s policies, demands public scrutiny. But isn’t that just code for wanting to undermine rulings they don’t like?

Roberts isn’t playing their game, and why should he? The court’s job is to interpret the Constitution, not to perform for activists who think “transparency” means airing every disagreement over coffee. Secrecy isn’t a bug; it’s a feature of impartial justice.

Still, the NDAs raise eyebrows—staff are now under legal threat if they spill, though it’s unclear if justices themselves signed similar pacts. The court’s silence on the matter, despite outreach from outlets like The Daily Beast, only fuels the mystery. But let’s not pretend this is some sinister plot; it’s damage control.

Conservative Values Under Siege at Court

Look at the bigger picture: the Supreme Court is under siege by a culture obsessed with tearing down institutions that don’t bow to progressive whims. Leaks aren’t just breaches of trust—they’re weapons in a broader fight to discredit conservative justices who dare uphold originalist principles. Roberts’ move, while tough, is a line in the sand.

What’s next could be telling. If leaks persist despite NDAs, expect even harsher measures—Roberts didn’t survive decades on the bench by being soft. The left will cry foul, but they’ve already shown they’ll exploit any crack they find.

For now, the court’s inner workings remain a black box, and that’s likely how Roberts wants it. In a world where every decision is spun into a political circus, protecting the sanctity of deliberation isn’t just smart—it’s essential. Americans deserve a court free from the mob’s prying eyes, and Roberts seems determined to deliver that.