Full Breakdown
Supreme Court’s Secretive Push to Seal Justices’ Papers After Scalia’s Death
9/1/2026, 9:46:43 PM
Scalia’s Death Sparks Confidential Efforts to Standardize Judicial Archives
In early 2016, Justice Antonin Scalia died of a heart attack on a Texas ranch, leaving no instructions for the disposition of his working papers.
Background: Absence of a Will for Supreme Court Papers
Kantor notes that, unlike the executive branch, the judicial branch has no statutes dictating how justices must preserve, disclose, or destroy their documents. The personal papers of each justice are considered private property, allowing each to decide whether to keep them confidential or make them public. This legal vacuum has historically enabled justices to postpone scrutiny of their work for decades.
Internal Discussions Led by Chief Justice Roberts
Following Scalia’s death, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. convened a series of memos and conference meetings, according to several people with knowledge of the process. Participants reportedly reached a consensus, though recollections differ on the exact terms and durability of the agreement.
Impact on Transparency and Future Practices
The lack of a formal policy means the court can continue to control access to its historical record. Kantor points to the later handling of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s papers—directed to the Library of Congress with a condition that no case file be opened until every involved justice had died—as an example of how such restrictions can lock away documents for decades. The episode underscores the broader tension between judicial confidentiality and public demand for transparency.
Official Response and Ongoing Uncertainty
A court spokeswoman declined to answer written inquiries about any existing records-preservation policy, offering no comment on the reported internal discussions. The silence leaves the public without clear guidance on how, when, or if future justices’ papers will become accessible, maintaining the opacity that has long characterized the Supreme Court’s internal workings.
