Jonathan Turley, a Constitutional Scholar, explained Thursday that the Supreme Court’s inability “almost as chilling” as the leak of a court opinion was.
What did the Supreme Court have to say?
According to a report, Supreme Court Marshal Gail Curley failed to find the leaker of the Dobbs-v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization opinion after eight months of investigation.
More than 100 interviews were conducted with court employees. The investigation revealed that many employees violated confidentiality rules by disclosing the outcome to their spouses. A forensic examination of court “computer devices and networks and available call logs and text logs” failed to reveal who provided a copy of the opinion to Politico.
Curley’s report offers suggestions for tightening security at the court but also suggests that no one is going to be held responsible for the shocking leak.
What did Turley actually say?
Turley says that people will say Turley’s statement about the shocking lack of answers is evidence that the FBI should have investigated this leak.
“The Supreme Court report shows that they can’t isolate the culprit from the more than 80 suspects in the Dobbs leak. Turley responded virally to Turley’s admission. It will likely rekindle concerns about whether the FBI should have been asked for the lead in the investigation.
Turley pointed out that the Supreme Court is located “only a few block from the world’s top forensic investigatory organization.”
Turley predicts that leaks will increase due to the absence of digital forensic evidence. This is especially true given the erosion of ethical guidelines that used to prevent employees from disclosing sensitive information.
This danger will only increase in this age of rage. One person felt they could leak. He predicted that others might now feel the same.
