In a prolonged and detailed investigation that has captivated the nation’s attention, the Supreme Court of the United States has yet to pinpoint the individual responsible for the unprecedented leak of a draft opinion poised to overturn nationwide abortion rights. The investigation, led by the Court’s Marshal, plunged deeply into the inner workings of the Court, involving extensive interviews and digital scrutiny, yet concluded without identifying the leaker.
The draft opinion, penned by Justice Samuel Alito and concerning the landmark case Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, was leaked to Politico and published on May 3, a significant six weeks prior to the official release by the Supreme Court. The draft signaled the potential reversal of Roe v. Wade, initiating a wave of discussions and controversy across the country.
Reacting to the gravity of the leak, which the Court described as “a grave assault on the judicial process,” Chief Justice John Roberts directed the Office of the Marshal, typically assigned security duties, to spearhead an exhaustive investigation. The Court emphasized that the unauthorized release represented an “extraordinary betrayal of trust” due to the crucial importance of confidentiality in judicial deliberations.
The extensive probe involved 126 interviews with 97 employees and a thorough examination of computer and printer records to trace the origin of the leak. Despite these efforts, the resulting report concluded that it was not possible to unequivocally identify the individual who disclosed the document to Politico. The investigation affirmed that there was no admission of guilt during interviews, and no forensic or digital evidence pointed to any suspect in particular.
Investigators also considered the possibility of an inadvertent leak, suggesting the draft could have been accidentally left in a public space, yet no concrete evidence supported this theory. Notably, the investigation determined that a cyber-attack or hacking incident targeting the Court’s systems was highly unlikely.
Intriguingly, aside from the nine justices, the report revealed that 82 employees had access to either electronic or physical copies of the draft. However, the scope of the investigation primarily targeted temporary staff, such as law clerks, and permanent Court personnel, although it did not explicitly confirm whether the justices themselves were investigated.
As part of the examination process, all court employees were required to hand over their private cell phones for a forensic review, which included scrutinizing call logs, text messages, and billing statements. Employees were also obligated to sign affidavits under the penalty of perjury, asserting they were not responsible for the leak. A few acknowledged discussing the draft opinion or vote count with their spouses and noted this in their affidavits.
Despite these exhaustive efforts, some aspects of electronic data remain unexplored, and certain investigative avenues are still open. Nevertheless, the report acknowledges that the identity of the leaker might never be ascertained conclusively.
The fallout from this investigation has prompted the Marshal to propose stringent security reforms aimed at preventing future leaks. Among these proposals is a recommendation to significantly reduce the number of employees with access to sensitive documents.
This incident recalls a similar past breach involving Justice Alito. In November, a report surfaced from a former anti-abortion leader, Rev. Rob Schenck, claiming he had been pre-informed about the outcome of a 2014 Supreme Court case regarding contraception and religious rights. The case, also featuring a majority opinion by Justice Alito, hinted at possible prior disclosures, although Alito firmly denied these claims.
The ongoing scrutiny and intrigue surrounding the leak underscore the delicate balance the judiciary must maintain between transparency and confidentiality. As the Supreme Court continues its efforts to safeguard its proceedings, the broader implications of this leak resonate through discussions about judicial integrity, public trust, and the sanctity of the Court’s deliberative processes. In a democratic society, these events serve as a stark reminder of the judiciary’s pivotal role and the profound impact of its internal dynamics on the fabric of American law and governance.
