El velo y el escudo
Filtraciones, seguridad y exposición personal en la Suprema corte de los Estados Unidos
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.48162/rev.100.049Palabras clave:
Filtraciones judiciales, Secreto de la deliberación, Seguridad judicial, Suprema Corte de los Estados Unidos, Confianza pública en la justiciaResumen
Este trabajo examina dos fenómenos que suelen tratarse por separado, la filtración de deliberaciones internas y las amenazas contra la integridad física de los jueces, como manifestaciones de una misma transformación institucional: el paso de la Suprema Corte de los Estados Unidos de ser la rama menos visible del gobierno federal a un objeto permanente de conflicto político. La primera parte reconstruye la genealogía de las filtraciones, desde el litigio del puente de Wheeling en 1852 hasta la publicación de memorandos internos en 2026, y evalúa las tres respuestas institucionales ensayadas: la regla disciplinaria de 1973, la investigación de 2022 y 2023, y los acuerdos de confidencialidad impuestos en 2024. La segunda examina el régimen de protección de los jueces federales y el testimonio de Elena Kagan y Amy Coney Barrett ante el Congreso en julio de 2026. Se sostiene que el tribunal enfrenta una tensión no resuelta entre reclamar la inviolabilidad de su interior institucional y exponer deliberadamente el de sus integrantes.
Citas
ARGUELHES, Diego Werneck; RIBEIRO, Leandro Molhano. “‘Ministrocracia’: o Supremo Tribunal individual e o processo democrático brasileiro”. Novos Estudos CEBRAP. 2018, vol. 37, núm. 1, p. 13–32.
ARMSTRONG, Scott; WOODWARD, Bob; LEWIS, Anthony. “The Evidence of The Brethren: An Exchange”. The New York Review of Books. 12 de junio de 1980.
BARRETT, Amy Coney. Listening to the Law: Reflections on the Court and Constitution. Nueva York: Sentinel, 2025.
BARTELS, Brandon L.; JOHNSTON, Christopher D. “On the Ideological Foundations of Supreme Court Legitimacy in the American Public”. American Journal of Political Science. 2013, vol. 57, núm. 1, p. 184–199.
BASSOK, Or. “The Sociological–Legitimacy Difficulty”. Journal of Law & Politics. 2010, vol. 26, núm. 2, p. 239–272.
BAUDE, William. “Foreword: The Supreme Court’s Shadow Docket”. New York University Journal of Law & Liberty. 2015, vol. 9, núm. 1, p. 1–47.
BISKUPIC, Joan. Nine Black Robes: Inside the Supreme Court’s Drive to the Right and Its Historic Consequences. Nueva York: William Morrow, 2023.
BRADLEY, Curtis A.; SIEGEL, Neil S. “The Supreme Court Under Threat: Early Lessons in Judicial Self–Protection”. Harvard Law Review. 2026, vol. 139.
CALDEIRA, Gregory A.; GIBSON, James L. “The Etiology of Public Support for the Supreme Court”. American Journal of Political Science. 1992, vol. 36, núm. 3, p. 635–664.
DAVIS, Richard. Justices and Journalists: The U.S. Supreme Court and the Media. Nueva York: Cambridge University Press, 2011.
EASTON, David. A Systems Analysis of Political Life. Nueva York: John Wiley & Sons, 1965.
EPSTEIN, Lee; LANDES, William M.; POSNER, Richard A. The Behavior of Federal Judges: A Theoretical and Empirical Study of Rational Choice. Cambridge (Massachusetts): Harvard University Press, 2013.
FALLON, Richard H. Jr. Law and Legitimacy in the Supreme Court. Cambridge (Massachusetts): The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2018.
FRIEDMAN, Barry. “Mediated Popular Constitutionalism”. Michigan Law Review. 2003, vol. 101, núm. 8, p. 2596–2636.
GARCÍA MANSILLA, Manuel J. “El Poder Judicial de los Estados Unidos en la ‘era Trump’”. El Derecho Constitucional. Abril de 2026, núm. 4. Cita digital: ED–VI–CCCXXXVII–175.
GARROW, David J. Liberty and Sexuality: The Right to Privacy and the Making of Roe v. Wade. Nueva York: Macmillan, 1994.
GARROW, David J. “The Supreme Court and The Brethren”. Constitutional Commentary. 2001, vol. 18, p. 303–318.
GIBSON, James L.; CALDEIRA, Gregory A.; SPENCE, Lester Kenyatta. “Measuring Attitudes toward the United States Supreme Court”. American Journal of Political Science. 2003, vol. 47, núm. 2, p. 354–367.
GIBSON, James L.; NELSON, Michael J. “Is the U.S. Supreme Court’s Legitimacy Grounded in Performance Satisfaction and Ideology?”. American Journal of Political Science. 2015, vol. 59, núm. 1, p. 162–174.
GOLDSMITH, Jack. “Interim Orders, the Presidency, and Judicial Supremacy”. Harvard Law Review. 2026, vol. 139.
GORSUCH, Neil M. Heroes of 1776: The Story of the Declaration of Independence. 2026.
GRABER, Mark A. Dred Scott and the Problem of Constitutional Evil. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.
GREENHOUSE, Linda. Becoming Justice Blackmun: Harry Blackmun’s Supreme Court Journey. Nueva York: Times Books, 2005.
GROVE, Tara Leigh. “The Supreme Court’s Legitimacy Dilemma”. Harvard Law Review. 2019, vol. 132, p. 2240–2276.
HEMRAJANI, Rahul. “Trust in the (Measures of Legitimacy of) Courts”. Political Research Quarterly. 2026 [en línea]. https://doi.org/10.1177/10659129261435391
ISGUR, Sarah. Last Branch Standing: A Potentially Surprising, Occasionally Witty Journey Inside Today’s Supreme Court. Nueva York: Crown, 2026.
KLEIN, Philip S. President James Buchanan: A Biography. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1962.
LAU ALBERDI, Jerónimo. “La Suprema Corte de los Estados Unidos en 2024–2025”. El Derecho Constitucional. Octubre de 2025, núm. 10, p. 2 y ss. Cita digital: ED–VI–CCLXI–979.
LAZARUS, Edward. Closed Chambers: The First Eyewitness Account of the Epic Struggles Inside the Supreme Court. Nueva York: Times Books, 1998.
LERNER, Craig S.; LUND, Nelson. “Judicial Duty and the Supreme Court’s Cult of Celebrity”. The George Washington Law Review. 2010, vol. 78, núm. 6, p. 1255–1299.
OWENS, John B. “The Clerk, the Thief, His Life as a Baker: Ashton Embry and the Supreme Court Leak Scandal of 1919”. Northwestern University Law Review. 2000, vol. 95, núm. 1, p. 271–308.
RE, Richard M. “The Supreme Court, 2024 Term — Foreword: To a Conservative Warren Court”. Harvard Law Review. 2025, vol. 139, núm. 1, p. 1 y ss.
ROBENALT, James D. January 1973: Watergate, Roe v. Wade, Vietnam, and the Month That Changed America Forever. Chicago: Chicago Review Press, 2015.
SHERRY, Suzanna. “Our Kardashian Court (and How to Fix It)”. Iowa Law Review. 2020, vol. 106, núm. 1, p. 181–228.
SILVA, Virgílio Afonso da. “Deciding without deliberating”. International Journal of Constitutional Law. 2013, vol. 11, núm. 3, p. 557–584.
SIMON, Dan; SCURICH, Nicholas. “Lay Judgments of Judicial Decision Making”. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies. 2011, vol. 8, núm. 4, p. 709–727.
SIMON, Dan; SCURICH, Nicholas. “The Effect of Legal Expert Commentary on Lay Judgments of Judicial Decision Making”. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies. 2013, vol. 10, núm. 4, p. 797–814.
VLADECK, Stephen. The Shadow Docket: How the Supreme Court Uses Stealth Rulings to Amass Power and Undermine the Republic. Nueva York: Basic Books, 2023.
WOODWARD, Bob; ARMSTRONG, Scott. The Brethren: Inside the Supreme Court. Nueva York: Simon & Schuster, 1979.
WOODWARD, Bob; BERNSTEIN, Carl. All the President’s Men. Nueva York: Simon & Schuster, 1974.
WOODWARD, Bob; BERNSTEIN, Carl. The Final Days. Nueva York: Simon & Schuster, 1976.
BARBASH, Fred. “Five Brethren Helped Authors”. The Washington Post. 2 de diciembre de 1979.
BAUDE, William. “The Non–Scandalous Clean Power Plan Memos” [en línea]. Divided Argument. 20 de abril de 2026. https://acortar.link/LmvOkb
BISKUPIC, Joan. Serie de reportajes sobre las deliberaciones internas de la Suprema Corte [en línea]. CNN. 12 de septiembre de 2019.
CITRON, Rodger. “A tale of two justices and their children’s books” [en línea]. SCOTUSblog. 3 de julio de 2026. https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/07/a-tale-of-two-justices-and-their-childrens-books/
CRAWFORD, Jan. “Roberts switched views to uphold health care law” [en línea]. CBS News. 1 de julio de 2012.
DALLAS, Kelsey; COLLINS, Nora. “A history of justices testifying before Congress” [en línea]. SCOTUSblog. 14 de julio de 2026. https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/07/a-history-of-justices-testifying-before-congress/
DIARIO JUDICIAL. “Cosecha de tempestades” [en línea]. 9 de noviembre de 2004. https://www.diariojudicial.com/news-49210-cosecha-de-tempestades
FRANKLIN, Charles. “The public’s view of the Supreme Court” [en línea]. SCOTUSblog. 16 de julio de 2026. https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/07/the-publics-view-of-the-supreme-court/
GEIDNER, Chris. “The Supreme Court Leak Report Ignored Nine Very Important Suspects” [en línea]. Balls and Strikes. Enero de 2023. https://ballsandstrikes.org/ethics-accountability/supreme-court-leak-report-dobbs/
GEORGETOWN JOURNAL OF LEGAL ETHICS. “Supreme Court Leaks: Can Anyone Police the Ethics of Supreme Court Clerks?” [en línea]. https://www.law.georgetown.edu/legal-ethics-journal/blog/supreme-court-leaks-can-anyone-police-the-ethics-of-supreme-court-clerks/
GERSTEIN, Josh; WARD, Alexander. “Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows” [en línea]. Politico. 2 de mayo de 2022. https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/supreme-court-abortion-draft-opinion-00029473
GOLDSMITH, Jack. “The powerful, resilient, independent Supreme Court” [en línea]. SCOTUSblog. 6 de julio de 2026. https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/07/the-powerful-resilient-independent-supreme-court/
GREENHOUSE, Linda. “Documents Reveal the Evolution of a Justice”. The New York Times. 4 de marzo de 2004, p. A1.
HAN, Hyemin. “Supreme Court Releases Marshal’s Report of Dobbs Leak” [en línea]. Lawfare. 19 de enero de 2023. https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/supreme-court-releases-marshals-report-dobbs-leak.
HOWE, Amy. “A history of Supreme Court leaks” [en línea]. SCOTUSblog. 22 de mayo de 2026. https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/05/a-history-of-supreme-court-leaks/.
HOWE, Amy. “Justices Kagan and Barrett testify before Congress” [en línea]. SCOTUSblog. 14 de julio de 2026. https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/07/justices-kagan-and-barrett-testify-before-congress/
KANTOR, Jodi. “How the Supreme Court Secretly Made Itself Even More Secretive” [en línea]. The New York Times. 2 de febrero de 2026. https://acortar.link/m8Febs
KANTOR, Jodi; LIPTAK, Adam. “How Roberts Shaped Trump’s Supreme Court Winning Streak” [en línea]. The New York Times. 15 de septiembre de 2024. https://acortar.link/tLx5gm
KANTOR, Jodi; LIPTAK, Adam. “The Inside Story of Five Days That Remade the Supreme Court” [en línea]. The New York Times. 18 de abril de 2026. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/18/us/politics/supreme-court-shadow-docket.html
MARGOLICK, David; PERETZ, Evgenia; SHNAYERSON, Michael. “The Path to Florida”. Vanity Fair. Octubre de 2004.
MARK, Julian; CLEMENT, Scott. “Nearly half of Americans in poll say Supreme Court bases rulings on politics” [en línea]. The Washington Post. 18 de julio de 2026. https://acortar.link/UMb1t1
MORSE, Dan. “She got eight years for plotting to kill Justice Kavanaugh. Prosecutors want more” [en línea]. The Washington Post. 23 de junio de 2026. https://acortar.link/FJQqVr
PETERS, Jonathan. “SCOTUS leaks are rare but not unprecedented” [en línea]. Slate. Julio de 2012.
SCOTUSBLOG. “Almost half of Americans view SCOTUS as political” [en línea]. 20 de julio de 2026. https://acortar.link/T2PNkv
SHEMTOB, Zachary. “The Brazilian Federal Supreme Court” (entrevista a Diego Werneck Arguelhes) [en línea]. SCOTUSblog. 17 de abril de 2026. https://acortar.link/oKDdFr
VLADECK, Stephen. “The Leak Investigation and the Separation of Powers” [en línea]. One First. 22 de enero de 2023. https://www.stevevladeck.com/p/11-the-leak-investigation-and-the
VLADECK, Stephen. “Chief Justice Roberts and the Clean Power Plan” [en línea]. One First, núm. 221. 20 de abril de 2026. https://www.stevevladeck.com/p/221-chief-justice-roberts-and-the
WAXMAN, Olivia B. “Inside the Original Roe v. Wade Supreme Court Leak From 1973”. Time. 2022.
WILL, George F. “The Injudicial Justices”. Newsweek. 10 de diciembre de 1979, p. 140.
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS. Solicitud presupuestaria para el ejercicio fiscal 2027, cuenta Court Security.
Alemania. Bundesverfassungsgerichtsgesetz, parágrafo 30, apartado 2.
Alemania. Deutsches Richtergesetz, parágrafo 43.
Alemania. Strafgesetzbuch, parágrafo 353b.
Estados Unidos. Daniel Anderl Judicial Security and Privacy Act of 2022, Pub. L. núm. 117–263, div. E, tít. LIX, subtít. D, secciones 5931 a 5939, 136 Stat. 3458.
Estados Unidos. Leaker Accountability Act of 2022, H.R. 7917; Stop Supreme Court Leakers Act of 2022, Senado.
Estados Unidos. Supreme Court Police Parity Act of 2022, Pub. L. núm. 117–148, 136 Stat. 1288. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-117publ148/html/PLAW-117publ148.htm
Estados Unidos. United States Code, título 18, secciones 641 y 1507; título 40, secc. 6121 y sig.
Francia. Décret n° 59–1293 du 13 novembre 1959; loi n° 79–18 du 3 janvier 1979 sur les archives; loi n° 2008–696 du 15 juillet 2008 relative aux archives; loi du 29 juillet 1881 sur la liberté de la presse.
GALLUP. Supreme Court Job Approval; Approval of U.S. Supreme Court Down to 40%, a New Low; Record Party Gaps in Job Approval of Supreme Court, Congress; New High Say Supreme Court Is Too Conservative; Views of Supreme Court Remain Near Record Lows [en línea]. Disponibles en Web: https://news.gallup.com
MARQUETTE LAW SCHOOL POLL. Encuestas nacionales del 8 al 16 de abril y del 20 al 26 de mayo de 2026 [en línea]. https://law.marquette.edu/poll/
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. Statement of the Court Concerning the Leak Investigation, con la declaración de Michael Chertoff y el Marshal’s Report of Findings and Recommendations de Gail A. Curley [en línea]. 19 de enero de 2023. https://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/press/Dobbs_Public_Report_January_19_2023.pdf
THE WASHINGTON POST; IPSOS. Sondeo del 8 al 13 de julio de 2026 [en línea]. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2026/07/18/most-americans-disapprove-supreme-court-performance-poll-shows/
US MARSHALS SERVICE. Judicial Security [en línea]. https://www.usmarshals.gov/what-we-do/judicial-security.
US MARSHALS SERVICE. Protective Investigations: Threat Statistics [en línea]. https://www.usmarshals.gov/what-we-do/judicial-security/protective-investigations-threat-statistics
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 2000.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. Department of Commerce v. New York, 588 U.S. 752, 2019.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U.S. 215, 2022.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179, 1973.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393, 1857.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. Fischer v. United States, 603 U.S. 480, 2024.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U.S. 474, 1988.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703, 2000.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, 607 U.S. ___, 2026.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. Little v. Hecox, 609 U.S. ___, 2026.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. Madsen v. Women’s Health Center, Inc., 512 U.S. 753, 1994.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. McCullen v. Coakley, 573 U.S. 464, 2014.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. Moore v. Illinois, 408 U.S. 786, 1972.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519, 2012.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, 609 U.S. ___, 2026.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713, 1971.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. Pennsylvania v. Wheeling & Belmont Bridge Co., 54 U.S. (13 How.) 518, 1852; 59 U.S. (18 How.) 421, 1856.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 1992.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 1973.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. Schenck v. Pro–Choice Network of Western New York, 519 U.S. 357, 1997.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. Trump v. Anderson, 601 U.S. 100, 2024.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. Trump v. Barbara, 609 U.S. ___, 2026.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. Trump v. Cook, 609 U.S. ___, 2026.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. Trump v. Slaughter, 609 U.S. ___, 2026.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593, 2024.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. United States v. Southern Pacific Co., 251 U.S. 1, 1920.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. West Virginia v. B.P.J., 609 U.S. ___, 2026.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, 597 U.S. 697, 2022.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson, 141 S. Ct. 2494, 2021.
Descargas
Publicado
Cómo citar
Número
Sección
Licencia
Derechos de autor 2026 Jeronimo Lau AlberdiLos autores que publican en esta revista están de acuerdo con los siguientes términos:
1. los autores conservan los derechos de autor y garantizan a la revista el derecho de ser la primera publicación del trabajo al igual que licenciado bajo una licencia Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-SA 2.5 AR) que permite a otros compartir el trabajo con un reconocimiento de la autoría del trabajo y la publicación inicial en esta revista.
2. Los autores pueden establecer por separado acuerdos adicionales para la distribución no exclusiva de la versión de la obra publicada en la revista (por ejemplo, situarlo en un repositorio institucional o publicarlo en un libro), con un reconocimiento de su publicación inicial en esta revista.
Keepers Registry
