Investigators were unable to determine the perpetrator behind Historical leakage From last year The opinion project in the Supreme Court, which transmits abortion rights On the national level, Marshal said in court on Thursday, despite the continued hunting.
A a report From the Marshal Office in the Supreme Court, which was issued on Thursday, they detailed how they conducted 126 interviews with 97 employees and recorded computer and printer records to try to determine who the draft opinion was leaked. Dobbs V. Jackson Women’s Organization To politico. News site Publishing the document On May 3, 2023 – More than six weeks before the court launched its final opinion Ro against a valley.
“The leak was not just a misleading attempt to protest. It was a serious attack on the judicial process,” read a statement issued by the Supreme Court on Thursday along with the report. The judges emphasized the need for confidentiality during their deliberations, describing the leakage as “an extraordinary trust.”
Immediately after the leakage, John Roberts Judges Marshal office ordered, Which is usually assigned only to provide security for the judges, to investigate the matter, but the team came in the end empty -handed.
The report concluded that “at this time, based on the predominance of the proof of evidence, the identity of any individual may not have revealed the document or how the draft opinion has ended with Politico.” “No one has publicly recognized the discovery of the document and did not provide any of the available criminal evidence and other evidence is the basis for identifying any individual as a source of the document.”
The investigators said that their digital analysis led them to believe that it was unlikely that the court’s regulations were hacked by an external actor. The report added: “The investigators cannot also eliminate the possibility that the draft opinion will be unveiled or negligent – for example, by leaving it in a public area either inside or outside the building.”
In addition to the nine court judges, 82 employees were able to reach electronic or clear copies of the draft opinion, according to Marshal.
“The investigation focused on the court staff – the temporary (law writers) and permanent employees – who have or may have the right to access the opinion project,” said Marshal. Court representatives did not immediately respond to inquiries about whether the judges themselves were among these “permanent employees” or were excluded from the investigation.
A report on Thursday said that the Marshal team “decided that there was no justification for any other investigations regarding many of these 82 employees.
Any employee was asked to deliver his own mobile phones to review this in order to review investigators calls, text messages and bills data, but nothing was found.
The court employees were also asked to register written certificates that are divided under the penalty of perjury that they were not behind the leakage. “A few who were interviewed have admitted to informing their husbands about the opinion project or the number of votes, so they clarified their certificates in this sense,” the report advised.
Some electronic data should still be reviewed, and some survey lines remain open, but at the present time, the court appears to be more interested in trying to prevent such leaks again.
To do this, Marshal made a series of security reform proposals, including intuition of the number of employees who have access to sensitive documents.
In November, The New York Times reported That the former leader to combat abortion, Reverend Rob Shink was Written to the head of the judges Saying that he was informed of the positive results of the state of contraceptives and religious rights in 2014 before it was announced.
This case, also, included an opinion on the majority written by Judge Alto, who informed the Times with Shink’s friends, one of whom sent him a day after day to say that she learned “some interesting news” – do not send her e -mail – to learn more.
Alito denied revealing the opinion of 2014.