SCOTUS Probe Fails to Identify Leaker of Decision Overturning Roe. v. Wade

An investigation into the leak of a bombshell Supreme Court ruling overturning the federal constitutional right to abortion — weeks before it was officially released — failed to identify the culprit, the court said Thursday.

Another embarrassing incident for the Supreme Court was the inability to locate the source of the leak. On Thursday, the Supreme Court called premature disclosure of the opinion. “one of the worst betrayals of trust in its history” “a grave assault on the judicial process.”

In the investigation, investigators interviewed almost 100 Supreme Court employees. Of these, 82 had access to hard or electronic copies of the draft opinion by conservative Justice Samuel Alito.

Politico It reported in May that it had obtained a snipped copy of the opinion. This indicates that the Supreme Court is poised to change its five-decade-old ruling, Roe v. Wade.

According to the leak report, June saw the release of the Supreme Court Alito’s majority opinion stated that there is no federal right to abort. Dobbs (v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization) was the case that led to this opinion. This case challenged Mississippi’s restrictive abortion law.

Following the leak, Chief Justice John Roberts ordered Gail Curley (marshal of the Supreme Court) to investigate who leaked the draft opinion to Politico.

“In following up on all available leads … the Marshal’s team performed additional forensic analysis and conducted multiple follow-up interviews of certain employees,” Thursday’s statement by the Supreme Court was accompanied by Curley’s report on the probe.

“But the team has to date been unable to identify a person responsible by a preponderance of the evidence,” The court ruled.

Curley stated in her report that investigators had examined court computers, networks and printers. “and available call and text logs.”

But “investigators have found no forensic evidence indicating who disclosed the draft opinion,” Curley wrote.

She noted that her team was also very supportive. “conducted 126 formal interviews of 97 employees, all of whom denied disclosing the opinion.”

“Despite these efforts, investigators have been unable to determine at this time, using a preponderance of the evidence standard, the identity of the person(s) who disclosed the draft majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Org. or how the draft opinion was provided to Politico,” Curley wrote.

In its statement, the Supreme Court stated that Curley’s investigation was evaluated by Michael Chertoff (an ex-federal judge and prosecutor and former secretary of Homeland Security).

Chertoff “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,” The court ruled.

The statement stated that investigators would continue to review electronic data that had been collected for the probe. “and a few other inquiries remain pending.”

Curley said in her report: “To the extent that additional investigation yields new evidence or leads, the investigators will pursue them.”

This is breaking news. Keep checking back for more updates.