Investigators questioned the Supreme Court justices to determine who leaked Justice Samuel Alito’s draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization last year. Those affidavits were not coerced signatures against the individuals’ consent.
Once word of the document’s breach spread in May 2022, Alito warned that “the majority of those who desire to overturn Roe and Casey are targets for assassination” because “it provided them a strong reason to think they might stop it by killing one of us.”
According to a statement released Friday, Supreme Court Marshal Gail Curley said she had “spoken to all of the Justices, and some of them more than once.”
They “actively worked with her,” she added of the judges, who she said both questioned and answered. I investigated several conceivable relationships and came up empty-handed regarding the Justices and their spouses.
This, she explained, was why she thought obtaining affidavits from the Justices was optional.
On Thursday, the Court stated it had been unable to determine who had leaked the material to Politico. This prompted the following comment from Curley.
Throughout the inquiry, 97 individuals were interviewed. It was noted in the research that “Court officials, both temporary (law clerks) and permanent, who had or may have access to the draft opinion from the time it was originally sent out until the time it was published” were scrutinized thoroughly.
Affidavits were required to ensure that these individuals had not discussed the Dobbs draft ruling with anybody outside the Supreme Court. No one else was required to submit an affidavit but the Justices.
Contrary to the Court’s strict privacy norms, the probe showed that “several persons informed investigators that they their spouse or partner about the draft Dobbs opinion and the vote count.”
As stated by the Marshal’s report, there is a need for further investigation. The investigators are still reviewing the electronic evidence they have gathered as they proceed with the investigation.
More studies will be conducted “to the extent that further inquiry turns up fresh evidence or leads,” as stated in the article. The disclosure of the draft judgment by a Court employee would have been a significant violation of confidence in a system that depends significantly on individuals being honest and has little safeguards over who may see what.
The following sections of the United States Code are mentioned in the report as being pertinent to the issue at hand:
Violators of 18 U.S.C. 371 face up to five years in jail and a $250,000 fine.
U.S. Code Title 18 Section 401 states, “A court of the United States shall have the ability to penalize contempt of its authority.” Both “misbehavior of any individual in its presence or close enough to it to hinder the administration of justice” and “misbehavior of any of its personnel in the exercise of their official responsibilities” fall under this category.
Removing any United States property or record without authorization is a crime under 18 U.S.C. 641.
A violation of 18 U.S.C. 1030 would be unauthorized or excessive computer use to obtain government information.
Federal law makes it a crime to “corruptly endeavor to influence, intimidate, or stop any officer in or of any United States court from executing his duties.”
If you hand over or leave documents with a court official in the United States, the records are considered to remain in the country for purposes of 18 U.S.C.