A month long investigation by K Marshall Supreme court It has failed to determine who leaked the draft version of the court’s overturning decision. roe v wade To political man Last year, the court said on Thursday.
In a statement, the court told justice leak Samuel Alitoin the draft opinion of Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization was “one of the worst breaches of trust in its history” and a “serious assault on judicial process,” but the person who provided the draft to a pair of reporters for the Washington, D.C.-based publication has not yet been identified Marshall’s best effort.
“The team has been unable to identify a person primarily responsible to date evidence,” the court said. “To the extent that the additional investigation yields new evidence or leads, the investigators will pursue them. Marshall and his team will continue to have our full support.
In a statement, former Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, who appointed Chief Justice John Roberts as a consultant to review the investigation, said Marshall and his team acted “fully within their legal authorities”. examined”.
“During my review, the investigators were transparent, cooperative and available to answer my questions about the process. At this time, I cannot identify any additional useful investigative measures,” he said.
Mr Chertoff said Chief Justice Roberts has also ordered a “comprehensive review of the Court’s information and document security protocols to reduce the risk of future incidents”.
The 19-page report revealed that Marshall’s inquiry determined that it was “unlikely” that the leak was caused by an outsider breaking into the Supreme Court’s IT system. But when asked whether someone with legitimate access to the system was responsible, the report said the technical investigation did not identify the suspect.
“After examining the court’s computer equipment, networks, printers, and available call and text logs, investigators have not found any forensic evidence indicating who disclosed the draft opinion,” the report said.
During the course of the investigation, Marshall and his colleagues interviewed 97 people with access to the court system, some who spoke to investigators more than once, for a total of 126 interviews.
“Despite these efforts, investigators have been unable at this time to determine, using a preponderance of the evidence standard, the identity of the individual who disclosed the draft majority opinion.” Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, or how the draft opinion was provided political man, Investigators continue to review and process some of the electronic data collected and some other inquiries remain pending,” the report said. “To the extent that additional investigation yields new evidence or leads, investigators will pursue them”. .