Supreme Court’s Inquiry Into Leak Included Interviews With Justices

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court docket’s inner investigation into who leaked a draft of the opinion final yr overturning the landmark resolution that had established a constitutional proper to abortion included speaking to all 9 justices, the marshal of the courtroom stated on Friday.

However the justices — in contrast to dozens of regulation clerks and everlasting staff of the courtroom — weren’t made to signal sworn affidavits testifying that they’d not been concerned within the leak of the draft opinion overruling Roe v. Wade and that they knew nothing about it.

The clarification by the marshal, Gail A. Curley, who oversaw the inquiry, adopted widespread hypothesis over its scope and limitations. In a 20-page report on Thursday, Ms. Curley disclosed that the investigation had not turned up the supply of the leak whereas leaving ambiguous whether or not it had prolonged to interviewing the justices themselves.

“Throughout the course of the investigation, I spoke with every of the justices, a number of on a number of events,” Ms. Curley stated on Friday. “The justices actively cooperated on this iterative course of, asking questions and answering mine.”

She added: “I adopted up on all credible leads, none of which implicated the justices or their spouses. On this foundation, I didn’t imagine that it was essential to ask the justices to signal sworn affidavits.”

Ms. Curley didn’t point out whether or not she searched the justices’ court-issued digital gadgets and requested them to show over private gadgets and cellphone data, as she did with different personnel. She additionally didn’t deal with whether or not she had interviewed any of the justices’ spouses, one other query that arose after her report was made public.

In releasing the report on Thursday, the courtroom additionally issued a press release from Michael Chertoff, a former prosecutor, choose and secretary of homeland safety, who stated he had reviewed the investigation and located it complete.

Mr. Chertoff stated that Ms. Curley and her staff had undertaken “a radical investigation,” and that he couldn’t “determine any extra helpful investigative measures.” Mr. Chertoff declined to touch upon Thursday and once more on Friday, referring inquiries to the courtroom’s press workplace.

In Might, Politico revealed the draft opinion within the case, Dobbs v. Jackson Girls’s Well being Group, in a rare breach of the courtroom’s secrecy. The ultimate opinion, which the courtroom issued in late June, was basically unchanged.

Quickly after the leak, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. confirmed its authenticity and referred to as the disclosure “a singular and egregious breach,” ordering an investigation. Justice Clarence Thomas likened it to infidelity, and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., the writer of the opinion, stated the disclosure endangered the lives of the justices within the majority.

The leak additionally prompted wildly divergent theories. Some insisted {that a} liberal justice or clerk, angered by the approaching resolution, was the offender. Others puzzled whether or not a conservative leaked the draft opinion to lock within the 5 justices who had tentatively voted within the majority. Doing so may be sure that any wavering justice could be much less inclined to vary his or her thoughts.

In her report, Ms. Curley prompt that the investigation had pursued each prospects, together with scrutinizing clerks who had been the topic of on-line hypothesis. However the report indicated that no proof supported these suspicions.

Whereas the report additionally cited technical limitations within the courtroom’s digital communications, it stated investigators didn’t imagine that exterior hackers had been behind the unauthorized disclosure.

“It’s unlikely that the general public disclosure was brought on by a hack of the courtroom’s I.T. programs,” the report stated. “The courtroom’s I.T. division didn’t discover any indications of a hack however continues to observe and audit the system for any indicators of compromise or intrusion into the courtroom’s I.T. infrastructure.”