The US Supreme Court has failed to identify who was behind the leak of a draft version of its blockbuster ruling overturning the 1973 Roe v Wade decision that had legalised abortion nationwide.
Key points:
- The ruling ended the recognition of a woman’s right to an abortion under the US Constitution
- Investigators found no forensic evidence identifying the leaker
- Some employees admitted they spoke to their spouses or partners about the draft opinion in a breach of confidentiality rules
An investigative report into the May 2022 leak, released on Thursday, also revealed multiple holes in security measures at America’s top judicial body.
The leak of the draft ruling — which news outlet Politico published on May 2 — prompted an internal crisis at the court, ignited a political firestorm and prompted rallies by abortion rights supporters around the country.
The investigation, detailed in a 20-page report, found that 82 court employees, plus the justices, had access to electronic or hard copies of the draft opinion authored by conservative Justice Samuel Alito, which was only marginally different than the final decision issued on June 24.
It was an unprecedented violation of the nine-member court’s tradition of confidentiality in the behind-the-scenes process of making rulings after hearing oral arguments in cases.
The ruling upheld a Mississippi law banning abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy and ended the recognition of a woman’s right to an abortion under the US Constitution.
Several Republican-governed states moved rapidly after the ruling to enact abortion bans.
What did the report find?
The probe, headed by the court’s chief security officer Gail Curley at the direction of Chief Justice John Roberts, did not identify a source of the leak, noting that none of the 97 court employees interviewed confessed to the disclosure.
The report did not make clear whether the justices were interviewed in the inquiry.
Some employees admitted they spoke to their spouses or partners about the draft opinion and how the justices voted, a breach of the court’s confidentiality rules, the report found.
The report was critical of some of the court’s internal security protocols.
After examining court computer devices, networks, printers and available call and text logs, investigators found no forensic evidence identifying the leaker, the report said.
If a court employee was responsible, the report said, that person “brazenly violated a system that was built fundamentally on trust with limited safeguards to regulate and constrain access to very sensitive information”.
“The pandemic and resulting expansion of the ability to work from home, as well as gaps in the court’s security policies, created an environment where it was too easy to remove sensitive information from the building and the court’s IT networks, increasing the risk of both deliberate and accidental disclosures of court sensitive information,” the report said.
The report recommended that regardless of whether the source is identified, the court should take action to “create and implement better policies to govern the handling of court-sensitive information and determine the best IT systems for security and collaboration”.
A “statement of the court” accompanying the report called the disclosure one of the worst breaches of trust in its history.
“The leak was no mere misguided attempt at protest. It was a grave assault on the judicial process,” the statement said.
Leak was ‘an affront’, chief justice says
The day after the publication of the leaked opinion, Chief Justice Roberts announced an investigation into what he called “a singular and egregious breach” of the Supreme Court’s trust “that is an affront to the court and the community of public servants who work here”.
He defended the court’s workforce as “intensely loyal to the institution and dedicated to the rule of law,” adding that court employees have a tradition of respecting the confidentiality of the judicial process.
Protesters staged demonstrations outside the homes of some of the conservative justices after the leak.
A 26-year-old California man armed with a handgun who planned to kill Brett Kavanaugh was charged with attempted murder on June 8 after being arrested near the justice’s Maryland home.
Liberal Justice Elena Kagan in September said the court’s legitimacy could be imperilled if Americans come to view its members as trying to impose personal preferences on society.
In October, Chief Justice Alito warned against questioning the court’s integrity.
Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor on January 4 said she felt a “sense of despair” at the direction taken by the court during its previous term. The court has a 6–3 conservative majority.
Chief Justice Alito found himself in the middle of another leak controversy in November after the New York Times reported a former anti-abortion leader’s assertion that he was told in advance about how the court would rule in a major 2014 case involving insurance coverage for women’s birth control.
The ruling, authored by Chief Justice Alito, exempted privately held companies from a Democratic-backed federal regulation that would have required any health insurance they provided employees to cover contraceptives if the business expressed a religious objection.
He said that any allegation that he or his wife leaked the 2014 decision was “completely false.” The court’s legal counsel concluded “there is nothing to suggest” he violated ethical standards.
Reuters