Quelle Surprise

Snitches get stitches. But according to the report, none were available at SCOTUS https://t.co/xmPfCAgEdY via @TPM

— Josh Marshall (@joshtpm) January 19, 2023

The Supreme Court released a report Thursday after its Marshal spent months attempting to determine who leaked a draft of the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision in which the conservative majority overturned Roe v. Wade.

“After months of diligent analysis of forensic evidence and interviews of almost 100 employees, the Marshal’s team determined that no further investigation was warranted with respect to many of the ‘82 employees [who] had access to electronic or hard copies of the draft opinion,’” the introduction read.

The team was unable to identify a person responsible.

“The investigation has determined that it is unlikely that the Court’s information technology (IT) systems were improperly accessed by a person outside the Court,” the Marshal said in her report. “After examining the Court’s computer devices, networks, printers, and available call and text logs, investigators have found no forensic evidence indicating who disclosed the draft opinion.”

So, who had access to an already printed copy in circulation among the Justices?

The report also noted that none of the nine justices who sit on the court were subject to the investigation — rather, it was confined to “Court personnel.” 

Oh.  Gee, couldn't have seen that coming.

“My review assessed that the Marshal and her experienced investigators undertook a thorough investigation within their legal authorities,” he said. 

It's tempting to say the Justices are literally above the law, but there is no law to invoke here.  Nothing controls the publication of Supreme Court opinions except the rules and practices of the Supreme Court (which is as it should be).  Roberts holds a title, not a position of authority:

In the federal judiciary, Article III does not explicitly create an office of the Chief Justice, but the Constitution presupposes its existence by referring to it in the impeachment clause of Article I. The Judiciary Act of 1789 formally creates the office of the Chief Justice. 

For the really pedantic among you (raises hand!), this is the establishing language of the cited Act of 1789:

That the Supreme court court of the United States shall consist of a chief justice and five associate iustices, 

Nothing in that Act, or subsequent law, makes the Chief Justice "first among equals" or gives the office any police power over the other justices. 

So basically someone in Alito’s office, right?

— Schooley (@Rschooley) January 19, 2023

So I'm still quite comfortable in saying Alito did it.  It's equally plausible a dissenting justice did it.  It only points out how poisonous reltaionships must be on the Court these days.

I have to add that, though the report refers (almost exclusively?) to the Politico publication, the leak wasn't just to Politico:

This appears to be at least the fifth different leak out of #SCOTUS related to Dobbs — after the WSJ editorial page, the original Politico leak, CNN, and the Washington Post. (And I may be missing one.)

It’s hard to overstate how ugly this means things must be behind the scenes. https://t.co/jpJrel5dFH

— Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) May 11, 2022

It's now known to be even uglier, completely apart from this multiple leak.  And funnier still they couldn't find anyone:

No it can’t. The Washington Post story had at least three different sources.

— Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) May 11, 2022

But, you know, that's folks, ain't it?

Remember: it was Alito’s opinion that leaked.

That fact paired with his politicized remarks below should be alarming to anyone.

The Supreme Court is in a legitimacy crisis. Chief Justice Roberts has a responsibility to share the progress & results of SCOTUS’ leak investigation. https://t.co/5AlOb1ihJw

— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) July 28, 2022

Welp; back to square one. Chief Justice Roberts says there's nothing to see here, folks, and wishes you would just move on.