Image source, Getty Images

Thank you for joining us for our live coverage of the Supreme Court leak, and the tumultuous day that followed. Here's a quick look back at the day:

• On Monday night, a draft ruling from the top court in the US was published by Politico. The ruling, penned by conservative Justice Samuel Alito, potentially overrules landmark 1973 abortion ruling Roe v Wade, calling the precedent "egregiously wrong"

• Without Roe - a nationwide guarantee to abortion access - states will be able to set their own abortion laws, including outright bans
• The ruling, expected this summer, will likely see new abortion restrictions in nearly half of all states

• President Joe Biden joined leading Democrats in decrying the leaked decision, saying that a "woman's right to choose is fundamental"
• Anti-abortion groups, in contrast, celebrated a major victory, saying the ruling would "save the lives of millions of unborn children"
• The Supreme Court confirmed the authenticity of the leaked draft, but said the ruling is not final
• Chief Justice John Roberts Jr called the leak a "singular and egregious breach of trust" and called for an investigation into its source

Want to know more?

• Why the leak is so seismic for US politics
• What happens if Roe v Wade is overturned?
• Who will be most affected?

Our writers today were Holly Honderich, Bernd Debusmann, and Jessica Murphy. The editor was Owen Amos.

The governors of 17 US states and territories including Wisconsin, New York, California and New Jersey have penned a letter urging Congress to codify abortion rights and ensure Americans "have meaningful access" to reproductive healthcare services.

In the letter, the governors say that reproductive healthcare decisions should be made by patients and healthcare providers, and "not by politicians".

The governors are calling on the Senate to pass the Women's Health Protection Act, a piece of legislation passed by the House of Representatives in September 2021.

The letter added that the consequences of overturning Roe v. Wade "cannot be overstated".

Read more about who has abortions in the US, and who might be affected by a Supreme Court ruling, here.

Earlier, we reported on an anti-abortion campaigner's reaction to the draft ruling in Texas.

Now, Maleeha Aziz, a community organiser for the pro-choice Texas Equal Access Fund, tells the BBC of her "shock and horror" over the leaked decision.

"Last night as I was reading through the very extreme and radical leaked draft, I felt shocked and horrified. We in the movement have been planning for the worst-case scenario for a while now.

"It hits you differently when you read through the language in the draft, though. As someone who has had two abortions and has had to travel out of state for one of them, I feel angry for folks who will be forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term due to a lack of funds, resources, and access.

"As a mother of a daughter, I feel sick and scared that if my daughter were to find herself in a similar situation, it would be so much harder for me to help her access the healthcare she deserves. I feel despair, anger, desperation, and the motivation to fight harder than ever."

Read more about Maleeha, and the battle over abortion in the US

Image source, Getty Images

Police in Washington DC have reportedly activated a number of "civil disturbance units" ahead of protests that may take place in the city following the of the draft Supreme Court decision.

A police memo shared online by local media, external reported that on-duty or off-duty members of these units are being called to assist "due to the potential for First Amendment activity" in the city, referring to the constitutionally-enshrined right to free speech and peaceful assembly.

The specialised units have been activated until Sunday, 8 May, with officers compensated for working overtime or outside of their regular hours.

Shortly after the story of the leak broke, officers from the US Supreme Court Police set up barricades near the Supreme Court building.

Will Grant
Reporting from Mexico City

While the emphasis in the US is increasingly on restricting access to abortions, in the neighbour to the south, Mexico, all the legal traffic is in the opposite direction.

At the end of last year, the Mexican Supreme Court struck down an abortion law in the northern state of Coahuila, which in essence decriminalised it across the country.

It still faces legal challenges - not least from powerful Catholic and evangelical groups with backing in parliament. However, pro-choice advocates are cautiously optimistic about the future.

Shortly after the decision in Mexico, women's reproductive health campaigners in Coahuila told me it was just a matter of time before they expected to see American women travelling south for legal abortions they could no longer receive at home.

They would offer their assistance to anyone, whether from Mexico or the US, they added.

However, the irony was not lost on them: the last time American women came south in significant numbers to seek an abortion was in the days before Roe Vs Wade.

One key hope among those calling for the decriminalisation of abortions in Mexico is that legislation will also tackle dangerous backstreet abortions and unscrupulous, unlicensed pharmacies giving out abortion pills of dubious origin.

So that anyone who seeks an abortion in the country - wherever they have come from - can be sure it is legal and safe.

Nomia Iqbal
Reporting from Miami, Florida

Alex Franzblau, 19 and Kaya Ells, 28 are at a pro-choice protest in Miami.

They say the Supreme Court ruling has terrified them - but they also feel frustrated with how President Biden and his party are handling it.

Alex says: "This is occurring during a Democratic president, a Democratic Congress, and some of the party’s politicians seem a bit stagnant or incapable on the face of this oncoming, very active, very militant right wing threat."

Kaya says: "Democrats aren’t going to codify this for a long time, like voting rights. I have very low expectations of them."

When I put this to Nikki Fried - who is running for the governership here, and is speaking to protesters - she says Democrats need to get tough.

“Yes! There’s so many things falling into the cracks in Washington DC, not just women’s rights. And if this isn’t a wake up call to the Democrats in Congress and the Senate I don’t know what is."

Image source, Getty Images

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has said "the right to choose is a woman's right and a woman's right alone".

In a tweet following the leak of a US Supreme Court draft opinion, Trudeau said that "every woman in Canada has a right to a safe and legal abortion".

"We'll never back down from protecting and promoting women's rights in Canada and around the world," he added.

Polling released, external in 2020 found that 71% of Canadians believe women should have access to abortions, regardless of the reason, and compared to 26% who believe that abortion should only be legal in certain circumstances.

Only 4% of Canadians believe that abortion should be illegal in all circumstances.

A more recent poll, external of Americans released in May 2021 found that 59% of Americans believe that abortions should be legal in most or all cases, compared with 39% who think they should be mostly illegal.

Read more about who could be affected by removing the national right to abortion in the US here.

Sarah Smith
North America Editor, reporting from the Supreme Court in Washington DC

Image source, Reuters

A small knot of anti-abortion campaigners outside the Supreme Court this afternoon are vastly outnumbered by pro-choice activists.

Banners declaring “My Body My Choice” and “abortion is a human right" are being waved in support of a parade of speakers who are discussing how they can work to maintain abortion rights in the US.

It’s time to codify abortion in federal law, they are demanding. And they are cheering on those promising financial support for women who have to travel out of their home states for an abortion - insisting this issue will galavanise liberal voters across the country.

For all the chants and cheers, almost everyone says they felt devastated when they read online the leaked opinion from the Supreme Court.

There is real passion and anger, which spilled over into a few scuffles last night.

There are no confrontations today, with only a few people holding “protection at conception banners” and “don’t kill humans" signs.

They are giving numerous interviews to TV crews from around the world, explaining why they believe women's rights don’t extend to terminating pregnancies - while calling for increased support for women with unplanned pregnancies so they can keep their children.

Nomia Iqbal
Reporting from Miami, Florida

Florida is imposing a new anti-abortion law, similar to the Mississippi law that the US Supreme Court is looking at.

From 1 July, it will not be possible to get the procedure after 15 weeks of pregnancy - the state’s very conservative Governor Ron DeSantis signed a bill in April.

Dozens of people have come to protest outside Freedom Tower in Miami to protest against the Supreme Court leaked draft ruling - but a lone protester stands amongst the pro-choice activists.

Amanda Garret, 27, is from Miami and says she rushed here.

“This [the pro-choice protest] is not the view of Floridians - we want to ban abortion. I believe it’s murder and there should be no exceptions. Babies' lives matter.

“I don’t necessarily feel I am alone in general - however the support to come out here is low because a lot of people don’t want to deal with the backlash.”

If Roe v Wade is overturned, a range of anti-abortion legislation is expected in large swathes of the country.

Without Roe, abortion access is expected to be cut off in up to 26 states - home to roughly 36 million women of reproductive age.

But some states are moving in the opposite direction, working to become abortion "sanctuaries" and offer reproductive health services banned elsewhere.

Last year, California clinics and their allies in the state legislature unveiled a plan to help those seeking reproductive care, including possibly paying for travel, accommodation and procedures for people from other states.

But while, in theory, American women will be able to travel to abortion-friendly states, logistically it may prove impossible.

Women seeking abortions are disproportionately lower-income, young and already have children. Millions may not be in a position to take a cross-country trip to seek care.

On Monday, Amazon said it was offering up to $4,000 in expenses for staff who needed out-of-town care - including abortion.

Tara McKelvey
BBC News, Washington

Stacy Shaw, 39, a lawyer in Kansas City, tells the BBC that she supports the right of women to choose.

“Personally, I don’t believe in abortion, but I think people should have a right to choose. Women should have autonomy over their own bodies, and I thought that legislating abortion was relegated to the past," she says.

"People want to regulate abortion, but they want to de-fund schools. Here in Missouri, our schools are failing. If you want to be pro-life, then you need to look at life after a child is born.”

Image source, Getty Images

US Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra says laws restricting access to abortion services are "dangerous".

In a statement posted to the HHS website, Becerra said that "patients make their own decisions about their bodies".

"That's their right," he added. "I strongly believe in protecting and promoting access to health care - that includes sexual and reproductive health care, and that includes safe and legal abortion care."

Additionally, Becerra said that "laws we have seen coming out of states that deny care are dangerous".

Image source, Getty Images

Good afternoon from Washington DC. It's been a huge day in the United States, following the leak of a draft ruling from the Supreme Court.

So if you're just joining us, or need a quick refresher, here's a look back the latest:

• Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts Jr released a statement confirming the draft opinion was authentic
• He called the leak a "singular and egregious breach of trust" and called for an investigation into its source
• The draft ruling that was leaked would overturn Roe v Wade - the landmark 1973 ruling that legalised abortion throughout the US
• If it were overturned, states would be allowed to set their own laws - which could mean abortion becoming illegal in around half of US states
• A final decision, expected this summer, may then see 36 million women of reproductive age lose access to abortion
• Speaking to reporters, President Joe Biden said overturning Roe v Wade would be "radical". Vice-President Kamala Harris warned that Republicans were "weaponising the rule of law against women"
• But anti-abortion groups say the ruling - if confirmed later this year - would "save the lives of millions of unborn children"

Laura Trevelyan
Reporting from the Supreme Court

"We are the majority," came the anguished cry from a woman speaking to pro-choice supporters outside the US Supreme Court this afternoon.

And it’s true that opinion polling suggests a majority of Americans support a woman’s right to an abortion.

But now the leaked draft opinion by Justice Alito suggests six conservative justices could be on the brink of overturning Roe v Wade, all because the balance of the court tipped during Donald Trump's presidency.

Alexandra, a pro-choice college student from American University who rushed here this morning to make her voice heard, remembers the confirmation hearings of Justice Kavanaugh as a pivotal moment.

Despite the "Me Too" movement, despite the allegations of sexual assault against him, he was confirmed, recalls Alexandra - and now "it feels like my generation of women are about to lose the right to control their own bodies".

Kim, a retired academic who taught women’s history, also came to the Supreme Court to express her dismay at the potential ruling.

"There is going to be a right to birth when there’s no right to healthcare or childcare?" Kim asked in disbelief.

"I’m not surprised this court is going to do this, but what did it mean in those confirmation hearings when those justices said they respected precedent?"

Image source, AFP via Getty Images

Angelica Casas
Reporting from San Antonio, Texas

Catherine Nix, of the San Antonio Coalition for Life, has lost count of the number of times she has prayed outside a Texas clinic that offers abortions. It's probably in the thousands.

Rain or shine, alone or with company, she makes almost daily visits to the local Planned Parenthood, one of the largest abortion services providers in the country.

She stands on the sidewalk trying to get the attention of patients arriving, to offer them other pregnancy options.

Today is no different. Even if the Supreme Court does overturn Roe v Wade, Nix says nothing changes for the work she and other anti-abortion advocates are doing.

“There will still be people with unexpected pregnancies,” Nix said. “Whether abortion is legal or illegal, it will still be considered by those people.”

In Texas, where abortion restrictions have intensified in the last year, many have been forced to travel out of the state for care. Nix says others in states with complete abortion bans will only do the same.

As she stood on the sidewalk today, she was confronted by an employee of the clinic who walked away with one of her signs and said he would call the police.

Nix fears that if and when the Supreme Court decision is finally made, the confrontations will be worse.

Still, “we are always going to be here”.

“Our job is to protect all innocent human life. We’re very hopeful, but we’re not rejoicing yet.”

Image source, Getty Images

More than 16 years after his confirmation hearing, US Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito now stands at the centre of the debate regarding the future of Roe v Wade, the case that legalised abortion in the US in 1973.

In a leaked Supreme Court draft opinion, Alito, 72, wrote that "Roe was egregiously wrong from the start" and "must be overruled".

Prior to being named to the highest US court, Alito - once considered among the most conservative justices - was a federal appeals court judge. He had been appointed to that position in 1990 by President George HW Bush.

A New Jersey native and graduate of Princeton University, he'd also been the US Attorney for District of New Jersey and served eight years as a signals officer in the US Army Reserve.

In 2005, Alito was nominated to the Supreme Court by George W Bush, who referred to him as "scholarly, fair-minded and principled".

During his 2006 confirmation hearing, Alito said that he believed that previous legal challenges to Roe v Wade had "strengthened" the 1973 landmark case's value as precedent.

He also said that when a "decision is challenged and it is reaffirmed, that strengthens its value as 'stare decisis'" - a legal principle that obligates courts to take into account past cases.

However, Alito said that, at the time, the abortion issue was involved in litigation at "all levels" and that the Supreme Court "should be insulated from public opinion".

"They should do what the law requires in all instances," he said. "That's why members of the judiciary are not elected."

Find out more about all nine justices, and the incoming Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson here.

Tara McKelvey
BBC News, Washington

Kim Kriebel, 47, a social worker, pictured here in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, told the BBC that pregnant women need more than a change in laws.

“I do believe that life begins at conception," she said.

"But it’s not enough to make a law or a rule because that doesn’t change anything. Sometimes, when someone gets pregnant, there’s like a panic, like: ‘how am I going to deal with this?’"

"My aunt runs a pregnancy-resource centre, and they collect cribs and bassinets and other things that mom might need if they don’t have any money.

"When there’s support like that, women who are pregnant can work things out.”

A Supreme Court in crisispublished at 18:21 British Summer Time 3 May 2022

18:21 BST 3 May 2022

Anthony Zurcher
BBC North America reporter

Never in US history has a draft Supreme Court opinion been leaked to the public.

The court traditionally operates like Mt Olympus, with opinions handed down from high and the inner workings – the judicial horse-trading, debating and cajoling necessary to reach a majority – all taking place in cloistered chambers.

It is a practice that speaks to the court’s unrivaled power to interpret, uphold or strike down any law Congress passes and establish or dismantle individual rights at the stroke of a pen.

It is a power that was assumed by the court itself in the early 1800s – and one that is inherently undemocratic.

The power has survived, and been respected, for as long as it has in part because protections and procedures that court’s champions have meticulously crafted over the centuries .

Only the nine judges and their handful of clerks – law school graduates selected for their achievements and intellect – are privy to the machinations of the Supreme Court’s judicial process.

Initial views are expressed in a non-binding vote shortly after a case is presented to the court, draft majority and dissenting opinions are circulated and changes are made.

There are reports and accounts – from former justices and those familiar with the process – of how draft opinions can sometimes bear little resemblance to the final ruling of the court.

The leak of Mr Alito’s draft majority opinion - tearing up Roe v Wade - short-circuits that process and could gravely wound the Supreme Court as an institution, sowing distrust among the justices and their clerks and fully exposing the judiciary to the sometimes harsh influence of American politics.

Accusations and conspiracy theories are already flying – that the leaker was a liberal making a last-ditch effort to prevent Roe’s repeal, a conservative concerned that the sweeping Alito opinion was in danger of being discarded, or a moderate who wants to make a final opinion paring back abortion protections seem less extreme.

Chief Justice John Roberts called the leak a “betrayal of the confidence of the court” and a “singular and egregious breach” of trust.

He ordered an investigation into the origins of the leak – but the damage has been done.