Constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley explained Thursday why the Supreme Court’s inability to find the person who leaked a court opinion is “almost as chilling as the leak itself.”
What did the Supreme Court say?
After eight months of investigating, Supreme Court Marshal Gail Curley was unable to discover who leaked the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization opinion, according to a report.
The investigation included more than 100 interviews with court employees, uncovering that several employees broke confidentiality rules by telling their spouses the outcome of the case. But a forensic examination — including of court “computer devices, networks, printers and available call and text logs” — failed to uncover who gave Politico a copy of the opinion.
Curley’s report provides suggestions to tighten security at the court, but also suggests that no one will be held accountable for the stunning leak.
What did Turley say?
The stunning lack of answers will lead people to say, according to Turley, that the FBI should have investigated the leak.
“The Supreme Court’s report indicates that they cannot isolate the culprit among the over 80 possible suspects for the Dobbs leak. It is an admission that is almost as chilling as the leak itself,” Turley wrote in a viral response. “It will likely revive concerns over whether the FBI should have been asked to take the lead on the investigation.
After all, the Supreme Court is situated “only a few blocks from the world’s leading forensic investigatory body,” Turley noted.
Considering the lack of digital forensic evidence, Turley predicted leaks will become more commonplace, especially with the erosion of ethical principles that previously kept employees from divulging information.
“In this age of rage, this danger will only grow. Someone felt that they had license to leak. Some others may now feel that they have the impunity to do so,” he predicted.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!