Progressive Justice groups Demand Justice, Take Back The Court urged Senators to launch an investigation into Justice Samuel of the U.S. Supreme Court. Alito The lobbying campaign to the High Court after The New York Times He claimed he leaked 2014 Hobby Lobby’s decision to wealthy evangelicals, who then used it as a means of influence against conservative justices.

“The Senate Judiciary Committee should immediately move to investigate the apparent leak by Justice Alito,” Brian Fallon is the Demand Justice executive director. “The whistleblower in this report, Rev. Rob Schenck, should be called to testify about both the leak and the years-long lobbying effort he once led to cultivate Alito and other Republican justices.”

Fallon went on: “This bombshell report is the latest proof that the Republican justices on the Court are little more than politicians in robes. It’s no wonder trust in the Court has hit a record low. Structural reform of the Court, including strict new ethics rules, is needed now more than ever.”

Sarah Lipton – Lubet, executive director at Take Back The Court, spoke out as well, encouraging Congress to “step up” to investigate the Supreme Court’s reported, “leaking [of] sensitive information to right-wing political allies.”

NARAL Pro-Choice America, a pro-abortion rights group, also demanded a Senate investigation into this alleged leak.

The House Judiciary Committee’s outgoing Rep. Mondaire, Jones (D.N.Y.), has called for an immediate investigation.

“Today’s well-sourced NY Times article strongly suggests Justice Alito leaked the 2014 opinion in Hobby Lobby and describes a conspiracy by the far-right donor class to influence the Supreme Court Justices,” Jones said in a tweet. “The House Judiciary Committee must investigate this while we still can.”

The New York Times reported on Saturday That Alito In the following, the outcome of the 2014 decision was revealed Hobby Lobby v. Burwell Before the announcement was made, an Ohio couple were involved in a campaign run by Schenck. Schenck is a former conservative evangelical activist. “stiffen the resolve of the court’s conservatives in taking uncompromising stances that could eventually lead to a reversal of Roe.”

Schenck’s allegation is crucial To understand the more recent and higher profile leak of the court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization to Politico In May. Alito He was the author of both Hobby Lobby’s and Dobbs’ decisions.

Justice Samuel Alito He is accused of having leaked his 2014 opinion in Hobby Lobby V. Burwell to wealthy evangelicals involved in an influence campaign.

Alex Wong via Getty Images

Chief Justice John Roberts made the disclosure and announced an investigation into the leak. However, there has not been a public statement about the investigation. Roberts received a letter from Schenck in July The allegation is detailed below Alito leaked the outcome of the Hobby Lobby decision ahead of time at a dinner with Schenck’s Ohio donors, Gayle and Donald Wright, according to the Times.

Hobby Lobby was an important case for the religious rights as they sought to end national abortion rights. The court’s 5-4 decision allowed private-held corporations to claim an exemption from the Affordable Care Act’s reproductive health care mandate on the grounds of religious liberty. This was a significant step forward in the fight against abortion and extended rights under the doctrines of corporate personhood.

Schenck’s revelations to the Times show that his effort to influence the court helped wealthy donors pierce the veil surrounding the least transparent branch of the federal government. To be closer to the justices, he encouraged donors to donate to the Supreme Court Historical Society. Justice Antonin Scalia (deceased) and Clarence Thomas (current Justice). Alito became friendly with Schenck’s donors.

The Supreme Court of the Federal Judiciary is the only court not subject to ethics or recusal rules. Recent years have seen significant changes in this area. Democrats Congress sought to pass legislation that required the court either to follow the ethics and recusal guidelines that apply to the rest federal judicial branch, or to write new binding rules.