Confidentiality Breach: Impact on Abortion Rights and Judicial Integrity in Wisconsin

Classified documents with top secret stamps and stamp

Wisconsin Supreme Court investigators were unable to identify who leaked a confidential draft order in an abortion rights case despite conducting dozens of interviews and extensive digital forensics.

Quick Takes

A confidential draft order in the Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin v. Urmanski case was deliberately leaked to the media.
Investigators interviewed 62 individuals and examined computer records but could not identify the responsible party.
This was an unprecedented breach of confidentiality for Wisconsin’s highest court.
Security issues were discovered, including documents left on printers and shared login credentials.
The investigation is suspended unless new information emerges.

Unprecedented Breach at Wisconsin’s Highest Court

The Wisconsin Supreme Court has released findings from an extensive investigation into a significant media leak that occurred last year in the Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin v. Urmanski abortion case. The investigation concluded that a confidential draft order was deliberately leaked to WisconsinWatch.org, which published an article quoting directly from the document. This breach marks the first known leak of this nature in the court’s history, raising serious concerns about confidentiality within the state’s judicial system.

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

The leaked draft order contained specific language regarding Wisconsin’s abortion law and its implications for bodily integrity, autonomy, and physicians’ rights. The leak came during a politically sensitive period as the court deliberated on the interpretation of Wisconsin’s abortion statute following the U.S. Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade. The timing and nature of the leak suggest it was strategically motivated, though investigators could not determine by whom or for what specific purpose.

Extensive Investigation Yields Few Answers

Investigators conducted a thorough probe that included interviews with 62 individuals who had potential access to the draft order, including justices, staff members, and court personnel. Digital forensics experts examined computer network logs, web browsing histories, emails, and printer data to trace the source of the leak. Despite these extensive efforts, the investigation did not produce sufficient evidence to identify the responsible individual or determine exactly how the information reached the media.

A significant obstacle to the investigation was the discovery that website visit logs for the relevant period were missing due to data preservation issues. This loss of critical information hampered investigators’ ability to track digital access to the document. The investigation also ruled out the possibility of an accidental release or external breach of the court’s computer systems, further supporting the conclusion that the leak was an intentional act by someone with authorized access to the confidential materials.

Security Lapses and Recommendations

The investigation uncovered numerous security vulnerabilities within the court’s operations. Documents were routinely left unattended on printer trays or mistakenly sent to the wrong departments. Staff members sometimes shared login credentials, increasing the risk of unauthorized access. These lapses in security protocol created an environment where sensitive information could be compromised without clear accountability, undermining the court’s ability to maintain confidentiality in high-profile cases.

In response to these findings, investigators issued several security recommendations for the court to implement. These include prohibiting the sharing of login credentials, using only government email accounts for official business, preserving data immediately after security incidents, implementing better physical security measures like locked doors, using tamper-resistant packaging for sensitive documents, properly shredding documents when no longer needed, and establishing stricter protocols for handling printed materials. The court has suspended the investigation unless new information emerges.