Investigation Into Supreme Court Draft Opinion Leak Fails to Produce Perpetrator

0
70

The investigation into the leak of Supreme Court draft opinions last year has not produced any answers. It has also failed to identify the source or the perpetrator.

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization draft opinions were published by Politico in May 2022. They revealed that the high court seemed poised to reverse the 1973 Roe v. Wade abortion decision. The court issued its official opinion in June 2022.

“The Constitution doesn’t prohibit citizens of any state from regulating or banning abortion.” “Roe and Casey rescinded that authority.” “We now overrule these decisions and return that power to the people, their elected representatives,” both the draft and the official opinions declared.

Investigators are still unable to determine the cause of the breach and who was responsible.

“At the moment, based upon a preponderance on the evidence standard it is impossible to determine the identity or how the draft opinion ended with Politico,” read the Supreme Court Marshal’s report.

“No one has confessed to disclosing the document publicly and no forensic or other evidence was available to identify the source. Although investigators and Court IT experts can’t rule out hacking, the evidence so far does not suggest that any outside access was improper. The report said that investigators cannot rule out the possibility of the draft opinion being accidentally or negligently revealed – such as by being left in a public area either inside or outside the building.”

Reports indicated that some individuals admitted to telling their partners about the draft. The report stated that investigators were able to find out from some individuals whether they shared information about the draft Dobbs opinion with their partner or spouse. This was in violation of Court confidentiality rules.

“Investigators continue reviewing and processing some electronic data that was collected, and a few additional inquiries remain pending. The report stated that investigators would pursue leads and evidence if additional investigation is required.