The Court should be sober-minded and fair. Instead, it has become partisan.

And now a Supreme Court Justice came under fire for an abusive screaming fit.

Temperament Concerns at the Highest Court

Supreme Court justices are expected to model restraint, reason, and mutual respect—even in moments of intense disagreement. Yet according to a new book, Justice Elena Kagan’s reaction to the 2022 Dobbs leak revealed a troubling lack of composure when a fellow liberal justice showed willingness to accommodate basic security needs.

In the tense weeks following the leak of the draft Dobbs opinion overturning Roe v. Wade, frustrations reportedly boiled over behind closed doors. Mollie Hemingway’s forthcoming book *Alito* details how Kagan confronted then-Justice Stephen Breyer, who was seen as the liberal bloc member most open to expediting dissents amid credible threats to conservative justices’ lives.

The book claims: “Kagan remonstrated with Breyer not to accommodate the majority, screaming so loudly, observers noted, that the ‘wall was shaking.’”

This alleged outburst occurred as the majority opinion sat ready while liberal dissents lagged, even as protests escalated into targeted harassment, vandalism, and an assassination attempt on a justice.

Prioritizing Politics Over Safety and Collegiality

The Dobbs leak dramatically heightened security risks for the conservative majority. Everyone on the Court understood that an official ruling had not yet issued, meaning the death or removal of a justice could theoretically alter the outcome.

Conservative justices faced protests at their homes, relocations for safety, and real assassination threats—yet Kagan reportedly directed her anger not at the leaker or the violent rhetoric outside, but at a colleague for considering a modest accommodation to move things forward.

Breyer, long regarded as a gentleman and friend to colleagues across ideological lines, was the one most likely to agree to the majority’s reasonable request for timely dissents due to those dangers. Kagan’s reported effort to pressure him against any cooperation highlights a rigid, partisan approach that appears to place ideological solidarity above institutional stability and personal safety.

Such behavior raises legitimate questions about judicial temperament. A justice who allegedly screams loudly enough to shake walls over procedural fairness—especially when colleagues’ lives are at stake—does little to inspire public confidence in the Court’s deliberative process.

The Need for Greater Restraint on the Bench

While passionate disagreement is inevitable on a divided Court, explosive confrontations and attempts to block even minimal cooperation erode the collegiality essential to the judiciary’s functioning.

The post-leak environment was already toxic, with heightened polarization and real-world violence stemming from the abortion debate. In that context, turning fury inward against a moderate liberal colleague for not stonewalling the majority seems particularly misguided.

Hemingway’s account, drawn from interviews with justices and insiders, paints a picture of a justice more focused on preventing any perceived concession than on upholding the Court’s duty to operate with dignity under pressure. True judicial leadership requires rising above raw emotion, especially when security threats loom and the nation watches.

Americans expect the Supreme Court to transcend partisan shouting matches. Incidents like the one described—whether fully accurate in every detail or not—serve as a reminder that unchecked personal intensity from any justice, including Kagan, can damage the institution’s reputation for sober, impartial judgment. The Court works best when its members prioritize reason, respect, and the rule of law over heated ideological enforcement.