Supreme Court Releases Statement on Dobbs Opinion Leak Investigation

The U.S. Supreme Court issued a statement on Thursday regarding the leaked opinion that indicated the court was set to overturn Roe v. Wade.

The court said they have not been able to determine who leaked a draft of Justice Samuel Alito’s opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.

Although investigators will continue to review evidence, there’s a possibility the individual responsible for the leak may never be found.

The court said the leak was “a grave assault on the judicial process” in the statement.

BREAKING: The Supreme Court says it has been unable to identify "by a preponderance of the evidence" who leaked the Dobbs opinion last year.

A statement from the court, along with a report on the leak investigation, is posted here: https://t.co/cVMLKkbCb9

— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) January 19, 2023

The full statement from the Supreme Court reads:

In May 2022, this Court suffered one of the worst breaches of trust in its history: the leak of a draft opinion. The leak was no mere misguided attempt at protest. It was a grave assault on the judicial process. To meet our obligations as judges, we accept submissions from parties and amici, we engage advocates at oral argument, and we publish explanations of our final decisions. All of this we do in the open. Along the way, though, it is essential that we deliberate with one another candidly and in confidence. That phase of the judicial process affords us an opportunity to hone initial thoughts, reconsider views, persuade one another, and work collaboratively to strengthen our collective judgment. It is no exaggeration to say that the integrity of judicial proceedings depends on the inviolability of internal deliberations.

For these reasons and others, the Court immediately and unanimously agreed that the extraordinary betrayal of trust that took place last May warranted a thorough investigation. The Chief Justice assigned the task to the Marshal of the Supreme Court and her staff. After months of diligent analysis of forensic evidence and interviews of almost 100 employees, the Marshal’s team determined that no further investigation was warranted with respect to many of the “82 employees [who] had access to electronic or hard copies of the draft opinion.” Marshal’s Report of Findings & Recommendations 11 (Jan. 19, 2023). 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. But the team has to date been unable to identify a person responsible by a preponderance of the evidence. Id., at 17. A public version of the Marshal’s report is attached.

Recently, 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. Statement from Michael Chertoff 1 (2023). A copy of Mr. Chertoff’s statement is attached.

The Marshal reports that “[i]nvestigators continue to review and process some electronic data that has been collected and a few other inquiries remain pending.” Marshal’s Report 2. “To the extent that additional investigation yields new evidence or leads, the investigators will pursue them.” Ibid. The Marshal and her team will continue to have our full support.

A report on the leak investigation is included with the above statement.

SCOTUS Blog wrote:

The unprecedented leak last May revealed that the court was privately poised to overturn the court’s landmark decisions establishing a constitutional right to an abortion. The court indicated on Thursday that investigators would continue to review some additional evidence, but the court’s two-page statement left open the possibility that the source of the leak may never be found.

The court’s statement denounced the leak as “a grave assault on the judicial process.” And a report by Gail Curley, the court official tasked with investigating the leak, suggested that the court’s document-handling policies should be beefed up to prevent future leaks. “If a Court employee disclosed the draft opinion,” Curley wrote, “that person brazenly violated a system that was built fundamentally on trust with limited safeguards to regulate and constrain access to very sensitive information.”

The court’s statement came eight-and-a-half months after Politico published Alito’s draft opinion on May 2, 2022. One day later, the Supreme Court confirmed that the leaked opinion was authentic, and Chief Justice John Roberts disclosed that he had directed Curley, who is the court’s marshal, to launch an investigation into the source of the leak.

The leaked opinion sparked protests from abortion-rights supporters and caused the court to take extra security precautions. Police officers erected fencing and metal barricades to keep protesters off the court’s plaza, while Attorney General Merrick Garland directed federal law-enforcement officials to provide security around the clock at the homes of all justices.