Supreme Court justices failed to sign affidavits in failed hunt for leaked Dobbs ruling

Supreme Court judges did not sign affidavits as part of a months-long investigation that failed to determine who leaked the draft court decision overturning Roe versus Wade down Politician last year.

Gail A Curley, the marshal of the court, revealed the detail in a brief statement on Friday.

“During the investigation, I spoke to each of the judges, several on multiple occasions,” she wrote. “The judges actively collaborated in this iterative process, asking questions and answering mine. I followed every credible lead, none of which involved the judges or their spouses.

“On that basis, I did not believe it was necessary to ask judges to sign affidavits.”

In a statement announcing the lack of progress in the investigation, the court said that Judge Samuel Alito’s draft opinion had been leaked in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization was “one of the worst breaches of trust in its history” and “a serious attack on the lawsuit”, but the person who supplied the draft to two reporters for publication in Washington has yet to be identified despite the Speaker’s best efforts.

“The team has so far been unable to identify the person responsible based on the preponderance of the evidence,” the court said. “To the extent that additional investigation yields new evidence or leads, investigators will pursue them. The Marshal and her team will continue to have our full support.”

In a statement, former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, whom Chairman John Roberts engaged as a consultant to review the investigation, said the marshal and her team “conducted a thorough investigation within their legal authority.”

“Throughout my review, investigators have been transparent, cooperative, and ready to answer my questions about the trial. I cannot identify any additional useful investigative measures at this time,” he said.

Mr Chertoff said Chief Justice Roberts also ordered a “comprehensive review of the Court’s information security protocols and documents to reduce the risk of future incidents.”

The 19-page report said the Marshal’s investigation determined it was “unlikely” that the leak was caused by an outsider hacking into the Supreme Court’s IT systems. But on the question of whether someone with legitimate access to the systems was responsible, the report says the technical investigation failed to identify a suspect.

“After examining the Court’s computer facilities, networks, printers, and available call and text logs, investigators found no forensic evidence implicating who leaked the draft opinion,” the report said.

During the course of the investigation, the marshal and her aides interviewed 97 people with access to court systems, with some individuals interviewing investigators more than once, for a total of 126 interviews.

“Despite these efforts, investigators have not been able to establish at this time, using the preponderance of the standard of evidence, the identity of the person or persons who disclosed the draft majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Org. or how the draft opinion was delivered Politician. Investigators continue to review and process some of the electronic data that has been collected, and several other investigations remain pending,” the report said. “To the extent that additional investigation yields new evidence or leads, investigators will pursue it.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *