Supreme Court fails to identify whistleblower on Roe v. Wade leak

By Al Mayadeen English
Source: News websites
20 Jan 13:32

After carrying out a total of 126 interviews with 97 employees, the Supreme Court says in a statement that it has failed to identify the source of the judicial leak.

The Supreme Court of the United States (Getty Images)

CNN Politics reported on Friday that an investigation into the hacking of a draft majority opinion on Roe v. Wade by conservative Justice Samuel Alito - weeks before it was scheduled to be released - failed to identify the person who leaked the information.

After carrying out a total of 126 interviews with 97 employees, the Supreme Court said in a statement that the investigation unit "has to date been unable to identify a person responsible by a preponderance of the evidence," noting that it was unlikely the leak had resulted from a computer hack.

Besides formal interviews, investigators carried out fingerprint analyses, "looked closely into any connections between employees and reporters,” and “especially scrutinized any contacts with anyone associated with Politico."

The report further states that dozens of people had access to the document and some even told their spouses about it, but nowhere did it state that there were legal implications tied to the violation of the court's confidentiality rules, neither did it state that justices or their spouses were investigated or interviewed.

"The investigation focused on Court personnel – temporary (law clerks) and permanent employees – who had or may have had access to the draft opinion during the period from the initial circulation until the publication by Politico," the report reads.

The final report made no mention whatsoever of the justices involved in the probe being investigated, therefore implying they weren't at all.

Employees were made to sign affidavits to affirm they did not leak the draft opinion and were also made to swear to the truth before a Notary Public.

The leak, which the report called "one of the worst betrayals of trust in its history" and "a grave assault on the judicial process" became public on May 2 when Politico published a draft opinion overturning the landmark decision.

Just a day after the leak was issued and left the court in a state of complete shock, Chief Justice John Roberts directed the marshal of the court, Gail Curley, to investigate the leak.

Despite having found no evidence to identify the culprit, the report issued by Curley states that the court ought to implement stronger regulations to better protect sensitive data.

"In time, continued investigation and analysis may produce additional leads that could identify the source of the disclosure," Curley states.

"Whether or not any individual is ever identified as the source of the disclosure, the Court should take action to create and implement better policies to govern the handling of Court-sensitive information and determine the best IT systems for security and collaboration."