Leak in Wisconsin Judicial System Sparks Debate on Case Confidentiality

Classified documents with top secret stamps and stamp

Wisconsin Supreme Court investigators have determined that a leak of a confidential draft order in a high-profile abortion case was likely deliberate, but they were unable to identify the culprit despite an extensive investigation involving dozens of interviews and forensic analysis.

Key Takeaways

A confidential draft order in the Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin v. Urmanski abortion case was leaked to the media, with WisconsinWatch.org publishing a sentence from it.
Investigators interviewed 62 people and examined computer logs, emails, and printer data but could not identify who was responsible.
The investigation found no evidence of a computer system breach or accidental release, suggesting the leak was deliberate.
This represents the first such breach in Wisconsin Supreme Court history, raising serious concerns about judicial confidentiality.
The investigation is now suspended unless new information emerges, with several security recommendations issued to prevent future leaks.

Unprecedented Breach of Judicial Confidentiality

The Wisconsin Supreme Court recently released findings from an investigation into a media leak that occurred in the Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin v. Urmanski abortion case. The court had never before experienced such a breach of confidentiality in its history. The investigation focused on determining how a sentence from a confidential draft order made its way to WisconsinWatch.org, which published the information. According to court documents, the leaked draft had been compiled creating a narrow timeframe for investigators to examine.

Investigators don't know who leaked a Wisconsin Supreme Court draft abortion order https://t.co/RhvP6a0zj6 pic.twitter.com/RipXmldOBU

— The Independent (@Independent) May 1, 2025

Extensive Investigation Yields Few Answers

Investigators conducted a thorough review that included interviewing 62 individuals who had potential access to the draft order, including justices, staff members, and other court personnel. The investigation also scrutinized computer network logs, web browsing histories, emails, and printer data in search of evidence that might identify the source of the leak. Despite these comprehensive efforts, investigators found no evidence of an external breach of the court’s computer systems or any indication that the document had been accidentally released.

One notable hindrance to the investigation was that website visit logs for the critical period were missing due to data preservation issues. Investigators documented this significant gap in their report, noting that this loss of data hampered their ability to track potential online activities related to the leak. The investigation also revealed concerning security practices within the court, including documents often being left unattended on printer trays or sent to incorrect departments.

Implications for Future Court Confidentiality

The case at the center of the leak involved significant debates on Wisconsin’s abortion law and its impact on bodily integrity, autonomy, and physicians’ rights. The sensitivity of the subject matter makes the breach particularly concerning for the court’s operations and public trust. Following their investigation, officials issued several security recommendations designed to prevent similar incidents in the future. These include not sharing login credentials, using government email accounts exclusively for court business, and implementing better practices for document handling.

Additional recommendations focused on improving physical security measures such as locking doors, preventing unauthorized access to sensitive areas, using tamper-resistant packaging for important documents, properly shredding discarded materials, and promptly retrieving printed documents. The investigation has now been suspended unless new information emerges that could identify the responsible party. This unresolved situation continues to cast a shadow over the court’s confidentiality protocols during a time when abortion-related legal matters remain among the most divisive in the American legal landscape.