ProPublica researched the power of Leonard Leo, the man most responsible for the rightwing majority on the U.S. Supreme Court and other levels of the federal judiciary. Few people know who he is. Now you are among them.
ProPublica writes:
The party guests who arrived on the evening of June 23, 2022, at the Tudor-style mansion on the coast of Maine were a special group in a special place enjoying a special time. The attendees included some two dozen federal and state judges — a gathering that required U.S. marshals with earpieces to stand watch while a Coast Guard boat idled in a nearby cove.
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’ decadeslong friendship with real estate tycoon Harlan Crow and Samuel Alito’s luxury travel with billionaire Paul Singer have raised questions about influence and ethics at the nation’s highest court.
Caterers served guests Pol Roger reserve, Winston Churchill’s favorite Champagne, a fitting choice for a group of conservative legal luminaries who had much to celebrate. The Supreme Court’s most recent term had delivered a series of huge victories with the possibility of a crowning one still to come. The decadeslong campaign to overturn Roe v. Wade, which a leaked draft opinion had said was “egregiously wrong from the start,” could come to fruition within days, if not hours.
Over dinner courses paired with wines chosen by the former food and beverage director of the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C., the 70 or so attendees jockeyed for a word with the man who had done as much as anyone to make this moment possible: their host, Leonard Leo.
I can’t think of anybody who played a role the way he has.
– Richard Friedman, a law professor and historian at the University of Michigan
Short and thick-bodied, dressed in a bespoke suit and round, owlish glasses, Leo looked like a character from an Agatha Christie mystery. Unlike the judges in attendance, Leo had never served a day on the bench. Unlike the other lawyers, he had never argued a case in court. He had never held elected office or run a law school. On paper, he was less important than almost all of his guests.
If Americans had heard of Leo at all, it was for his role in building the conservative supermajority on the Supreme Court. He drew up the lists of potential justices that Donald Trump released during the 2016 campaign. He advised Trump on the nominations of Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. Before that, he’d helped pick or confirm the court’s three other conservative justices — Clarence Thomas, John Roberts and Samuel Alito. But the guests who gathered that night under a tent in Leo’s backyard included key players in a less-understood effort, one aimed at transforming the entire judiciary.
Many could thank Leo for their advancement. Thomas Hardiman of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled to loosen gun laws and overturn Obamacare’s birth-control mandate. Leo had put Hardiman on Trump’s Supreme Court shortlist and helped confirm him to two earlier judgeships.
Kyle Duncan and Cory Wilson, both on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, both fiercely anti-abortion, were members of the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies, the network of conservative and libertarian lawyers that Leo had built into a political juggernaut. As was Florida federal Judge Wendy Berger, who would uphold that state’s “Don’t Say Gay” law. Within a year of the party, another attendee, Republican North Carolina Supreme Court Justice Phil Berger Jr. (no relation), would write the opinion reinstating a controversial state law requiring voter identification.
Duncan, Wilson, Berger and Berger Jr. did not comment. Hardiman did not comment beyond confirming he attended the party.
The judges were in Maine for a weeklong, all-expenses-paid conference hosted by George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School, a hub for steeping young lawyers, judges and state attorneys general in a free-market, anti-regulation agenda. The leaders of the law school were at the party, and they also were indebted to Leo. He had secured the Scalia family’s blessing and brokered $30 million in donations to rename the school. It is home to the C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State, named after the George H.W. Bush White House counsel who died this May. Gray was at Leo’s party, too.
A spokesperson for GMU confirmed the details of the week’s events.
The judges and the security detail, the law school leadership and the legal theorists — all of this was a vivid display not only of Leo’s power but of his vision. Decades ago, he’d realized it was not enough to have a majority of Supreme Court justices. To undo landmark rulings like Roe, his movement would need to make sure the court heard the right cases brought by the right people and heard by the right lower court judges.
Leo began building a machine to do just that. He didn’t just cultivate friendships with conservative Supreme Court justices, arranging private jet trips, joining them on vacation, brokering speaking engagements. He also drew on his network of contacts to place Federalist Society protégés in clerkships, judgeships and jobs in the White House and across the federal government.
He personally called state attorneys general to recommend hires for positions he presciently understood were key, like solicitors general, the unsung litigators who represent states before the U.S. Supreme Court. In states that elect jurists, groups close to him spent millions of dollars to place his allies on the bench. In states that appoint top judges, he maneuvered to play a role in their selection.
And he was capable of playing bare-knuckled politics. He once privately lobbied a Republican governor’s office to reject a potential judicial pick and, if the governor defied him, threatened “fury from the conservative base, the likes of which you and the Governor have never seen.”
To pay for all this, Leo became one of the most prolific fundraisers in American politics. Between 2014 and 2020, tax records show, groups in his orbit raised more than $600 million. His donors include hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer, Texas real estate magnate Harlan Crow and the Koch family.
Leo grasped the stakes of these seemingly obscure races and appointments long before liberals and Democrats did. “The left, even though we are somewhat court worshippers, never understood the potency of the courts as a political machine. On the right, they did,” said Caroline Fredrickson, a visiting professor at Georgetown Law and a former president of the American Constitution Society, the left’s answer to the Federalist Society. “As much as I hate to say it, you’ve got to really admire what they achieved.” Belatedly, Leo’s opposition has galvanized, joining conservatives in an arms race that shows no sign of slowing down.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett stated today that ” it would be a “good idea” for the Supreme Court to adopt an ethical code of conduct, becoming the latest justice to endorse the proposal in the wake of the court’s recent ethics controversies. ” Most of the public is also in favor of a code of conduct for justices to avoid outside influences from playing a role in decisions.
LikeLike
If Barrett would sign a pledge that the US is a country not, her church, it would be a good idea.
Speaking of…Mother Jones posted in 2022, “Christian nationalists are closer than you think to running America.”
Odd that, since the conservative majority on SCOTUS is Catholic. Leonard Leo is right wing Catholic, Hillsdale and the Council for National Policy appear to be as much Catholic as Christian and, Becket Law, Jones Day and EPPC
… etc.
LikeLike
Though American Evangelicals might not grok this, Catholic IS Christian. For 1,500 years, the Catholic church was the ONLY Christian church, aside, ofc, from the small heretical groups whom the church worked assiduously to eradicate (that is murder, to the last man, woman, and child). Please don’t adopt the ignorant Evangelical usage, Linda!
LikeLike
A moment of silent reverence, please, in memory of the Antinomians, the Arians, the Montanists, the Pelagians, the Ophites, the Cathars, the Brethren of the Free Spirit, the Lollards, the Diggers, the Levelers, etc etc.
Not to mention the crazy free love folk who made spoons and forks and tea sets. LOL.
LikeLike
While I do not agree with Coney Barrett on most issues, I am pleased that at least one of the Trump newbies believes in some type of ethics standards for the justices.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bob-
You can correct me or I can be corrected by the 99.999….%. BYU and Notre Dame are Christian.
Lump Catholic politicking into “Christian” for its Teflon coating.
LikeLike
Not sure what you are saying. Are you saying that calling Catholicism “Christian” insidiously makes it more appealing?
Sorry, that’s like saying calling an Appaloosa or an Arabian a horse makes it more appealing. An Appaloosa or an Arabian IS a horse. A Catholic is a Christian. Ask any Catholic, from the Pope down, at any time in the history of the Church.
LikeLike
Bob-
Trying a different tack-assume the Pope wants to stop politicized right wing Catholics because he thinks they threaten democracy, does he message about a group that the public understands
to be a decentralized collection of protestant denominations? Or, might he reject that as ineffective strategy and target the the audience he knows to fear?
No, I’m not saying his sect becomes more appealing (especially to mainstream media) by being linked to the churches of loud mouthed, bigoted male, Christian nationalist pastors.
Just one follow-up question, do you think journalists, who are mainly on the east coast, are operating in their professions as though they think the Catholic Church in the US is liberal like the Pope and Biden?
LikeLike
Again, Catholicism is one variety of Christianity. For a millennium and a half, it was practically the only variety.
Journalists that are any good see the Catholic church as a mixed bag. It does some good in the world. It does some evil. There are wonderful folks within it. There are terrible ones. I do not see the Catholic church as any better or worse than any other demonization or, for that matter, than any other major religious organization. There are wonderful Methodists. There are horrible Methodists. There are obscenely ridiculous and counterproductive official Methodist teachings. There are wonderful Methodist teachings. Same for the many Hindu, Buddhist, and Muslim sects. It seems to me utterly ridiculous to take the following approach: The House of Representatives voted yesterday to cut back the school lunch program. Did it escape the notice of the media that one of the people who cleaned the chamber before the vote, thereby enabling it, was a choir boy when he was 12? In this manner, the nefarious media gives Catholicism a pass.
LOL
LikeLike
cx: As any other denomination
ofc. A funny autocorrect error there
LikeLike
Bob- I get your point, the success of the right wing politicking of the Methodist church is equivalent to the Catholic Church in money spent on GOP causes, in communication networks like voter mobilization, in tax money received by their affiliated organizations, etc.
The 3 major city dioceses which were among the top 5 spenders ($900,000) influencing votes for an anti democracy issue on an Ohio ballot in August, has ubiquitous parallels among other sects.
The Colorado Catholic Conference whose executive director was formerly with the Koch network and EdChoice and the Kentucky Catholic Conference’s associate director who was, simultaneously, the VP of EdChoice in Kentucky is not, in any way, dissimilar to any decentralized protestant, Hindu, etc. sect’s politicking.
In terms of religious universities, the work of the Notre Dame legal scholar credited as most influential in advancing religious charter schools who is also a Manhattan Institute (Koch) Fellow is in no way unique. The Notre Dame ACE Summits for School Choice have lots of competitors with similar resources from other sects trying to accomplish the same thing.
Lots of sects have prominent Republican operatives like Steve Bannon geofencing them for political messaging.
Bob,
You and I process information very differently. I think any readers left who read our dialogues aren’t gaining anything from the exchange.
How about this, going forward, I won’t correct your viewpoint and you don’t correct mine? We’ll allow readers to engage their own processing without filter.
LikeLike
Good for her. Shouldn’t be controversial.
LikeLike
https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=248502045185400&set=pob.1448524152
LikeLike
There’s a podcast version of this report in three parts presented by On the Media. This is the first part:
https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/episodes/on-the-media-we-dont-talk-about-leonard-episode-1
LikeLiked by 1 person
Check out the full ProPublica article. Provides a lot of previously-scattered dots and connects them. Reads like “This is the house that Jack built.”
LikeLike
I am accustomed seeing “getting control of the courts” as a step in the wannabe-autocrat playbook. This article expands my view. Getting control of the courts = creating the playing field for a game anyone can play: autocrats, oligarchs, theocrats, AynRandian libertarians, you name it.
LikeLike