Supreme Court Cannot Determine Abortion Opinion Suspension

Investigators cannot identify the culprit Historical leak Last year’s Draft opinion on the Supreme Court to promote the right to abortion The court’s marshal said nationwide Thursday, although the hunting continued.

one Report Posted from the Marshal’s Office of the top U.S. courts, Thursday released a detailed description of how they conducted 126 interviews with 97 employees and searched for computer and printer records to point out who leaked Justice Samuel Elito in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization To Politico. News website Documentation has been published May 3, 2023 – More than six weeks before the court issued its final opinion overturned Roe v Wade.

“The leak is not just a misleading protest. It is a serious attack on the judicial process,” a statement issued by the Supreme Court on Thursday was published along with the report. The Justice stressed the need to keep confidential during the deliberations, saying the leak was “extraordinary betrayal of trust.”

Chief Justice John Roberts immediately after the leak Order the Marshal’s Office, Usually, it was just a task to provide a safe task for the judge to investigate the matter, but the team ended up returning empty-handed.

“At present, based on the advantages of the proof standard, it is impossible to identify any person who may disclose the document, or the draft opinion ends with Politico,” the report concluded. “No one acknowledged the public disclosure of the document, and no forensic and other evidence available provides the basis for identifying any individual as the source of the document.”

Investigators say their digital analysis makes them think the court’s system is unlikely to be invaded by outside actors. “Investigators have not yet been able to eliminate the possibility that the draft opinion has been unintentionally or negligently disclosed, for example, by leaving it in public spaces inside or outside the building,” the report added.

In addition to the nine judges of the court, 82 employees were allowed to use electronic or hard copies of the draft opinion, according to the Marshal.

“The focus of the investigation is on the court personnel – temporary (law firms) and permanent employees who have or may have had or may have obtained draft opinions.” The court representative did not immediately answer questions about whether the judge himself was these “permanent employees” or were excluded from the investigation.

Thursday’s report said the Marshal’s team “confirmed that there was no further investigation into many of the 82 employees.”

To get investigators to review call logs, text messages and billing statements, any employee asked to hand over their private phones for review did so, but found no charges.

Court employees were also asked to sign an affidavit of sworn in and signed with perjury, and they were not behind the leak. The report recommends: “Some of the people interviewed admitted to presenting their spouse with opinions or voting charges, so they commented on the affidavit to achieve this impact.”

Some electronic data still needs to be reviewed and some inquiry lines remain open, but for the time being, the court seems more concerned about trying to prevent this leak from happening again.

To this end, the Marshal made a series of security reform recommendations, including severely limiting the number of employees with sensitive documents.

November, The New York Times reported The former anti-abortion leader, Rev. Rob Schenck, Write to the Chief Justice It is said that he was informed of the favorable outcomes of contraception and religious rights in 2014 before he announced his announcement.

The case also involved most opinions written by Justice Alito, who reported that he had dinner with Schenk’s friends and then emailed him a day later saying she had learned “some interesting news” and called her – not emailing her – to learn more.

Alito denied disclosing its opinion for 2014.