Supreme Court 'unable to identify' Dobbs decision leaker
Calling it “a grave assault on the judicial process,” and “one of the worst breaches of trust in its history,” the U.S. Supreme Court Thursday afternoon announced it cannot determine who leaked the draft opinion in the Dobbs decision last May, which ultimately served to overturn Roe v. Wade.
“The leak was no mere misguided attempt at protest,” the Court said in a statement, making the possibly incorrect assertion that it was, in fact, an attempt at protest. Some have wondered if the leak was made by one of the Justices themselves, or one of their clerks, to essentially cement the decision from changing, although there is no proof of that.
The Marshal of the Supreme Court and her team are “to date been unable to identify a person responsible by a preponderance of the evidence,” the statement says.
The Court says the Marshal’s report states it investigated 82 employees “who had access to electronic or hard copies of the draft opinion.”
“In following up on all available leads, however, the Marshal’s team performed additional forensic analysis and conducted multiple follow-up interviews of certain employees,” the Court adds.
The statement adds that “this Court consulted Michael Chertoff. Mr. Chertoff is a former Secretary of Homeland Security, Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division of the U. S. Department of Justice, and U. S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey. We invited Mr. Chertoff to assess the
Marshal’s investigation. He has advised that the Marshal ‘undertook a thorough investigation’ and, ‘[a]t this time, I cannot identify any additional useful investigative measures’ not already undertaken or underway.”
In May of 2022, after the leak New York magazine published “A Running List of Theories About the Supreme Court Leaker.”
“Some legal scholars and former Court clerks have suggested that releasing the opinion — whether or not it represents a more recent draft held by Alito — could serve as a method to keep conservative justices in line in case Roberts makes a push for a more moderate decision.”
That article offered the following possibilities:
“It was a leak from the right to stop Kavanaugh from defecting”
“It’s designed to make the ruling as drastic as possible”
“It’s a leak from the left to influence Roberts”
“It was Roberts”
“It’s designed to blunt the liberal reaction to the final decision — or serve as a distraction”
This is a breaking news and developing story. Details may change.
- Anti-abortion Republicans have 'learned nothing' from their midterms disappointments: columnist ›
- 'Shaken' law professors revolt as hyper-partisan SCOTUS rulings 'upend constitutional principles' ›
- A Fox host throws Lindsey Graham under the bus as he struggles to keep his Senate seat ›