In an exhaustive investigative pursuit, the office of the marshal of the U.S. Supreme Court, traditionally tasked mainly with ensuring the security of the justices, conducted a thorough examination concerning a leaked draft opinion. Over the course of their inquiry, the marshal’s office interviewed a total of 126 court employees, interacting with 97 individuals. From this pool, it was ascertained that as many as 82 employees, in addition to all nine Supreme Court justices, had access to the sensitive draft document.
At the time of the investigation, Justice Stephen Breyer was still an active member of the court, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson yet to be appointed as his replacement. The probe, however, was notably focused more on the court’s personnel—like law clerks and other staff members—rather than on the justices themselves.
Marshal Gail A. Curley, in a statement following the investigation, clarified her stance regarding the involvement of the justices in the inquiry. Curley expressed her confidence in the cooperative attitude exhibited by the justices throughout the investigation, indicating that each justice was approached and engaged actively, some multiple times, during the process. According to Curley, all plausible leads were followed; however, none suggested any culpability on the part of the justices or their spouses in the leak.
Despite the comprehensive approach of the marshal, the method employed sparked debates over the investigative procedures used. In a pointed critique, an advocacy group, Take Back the Court, spotlighted potential issues of justice accountability and impartiality. This was instigated further by a November New York Times report which disclosed a prior instance from 2014 where a former anti-abortion leader reportedly came to know of an Alito-majority decision ahead of its publication. This revelation followed the individual’s interaction with Justice Alito and his wife at a social event. Questions were raised by Take Back the Court regarding whether Justice Alito’s connections with anti-abortion groups and the mentioned 2014 incident were sufficiently scrutinized during the investigation.
The disparity in the handling of the court’s employees versus the justices themselves also drew criticism. Court employees, if found to be misleading during the investigation, faced severe repercussions including potential termination and harm to their career prospects. Justices, due to their lifetime appointments and the intricate process required to remove them from office, seemingly faced no comparable threat of legal jeopardy. This raised concerns about the unequal application of accountability measures, as highlighted by the advocacy group’s critique.
The leaked draft and the subsequent investigation had also stirred political interests. Representative Jim Jordan, aligned with the Republican majority in the newly flipped House of Representatives, expressed broader legislative intentions touching on various national security and immigration issues, as well as the handling of classified documents by President Joe Biden. Yet, the issue of the Supreme Court leak remained pertinent. Republican Congressman Darrell Issa called for a more profound congressional investigation into the leak, emphasizing that the matter was ‘not case closed.’
The stance taken by various political figures, combined with the pressure from advocacy groups and the public’s intrigue, underscored the complexity and the gravity of the situation surrounding the Supreme Court. The leak not only exposed procedural failings and potential biases within one of the nation’s pivotal judicial bodies but also instigated a broader discourse on transparency, accountability, and the ethical responsibilities of those at the pinnacle of judicial power in the United States. As discussions continue and further investigations are potentially undertaken, the full implications of the leak and its aftermath remain a focal point of concern and scrutiny in the ongoing narrative surrounding the integrity of the U.S. judiciary system.
