https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/1616154337335443493SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
S TATEMENT OF THE COURT
CONCERNING THE LEAK INVESTIGATION
In May 2022, this Court suffered one of the worst
breaches of trust in its history: the leak of a draft opinion.
The leak was no mere misguided attempt at protest. It was
a grave assault on the judicial process. To meet our obliga-
tions as judges, we accept submissions from parties and
amici, we engage advocates at oral argument, and we pub-
lish explanations of our final decisions. All of this we do in
the open. Along the way, though, it is essential that we de-
liberate with one another candidly and in confidence. That
phase of the judicial process affords us an opportunity to
hone initial thoughts, reconsider views, persuade one an-
other, and work collaboratively to strengthen our collective
judgment. It is no exaggeration to say that the integrity of
judicial proceedings depends on the inviolability of internal
deliberations.
For these reasons and others, the Court immediately and
unanimously agreed that the extraordinary betrayal of
trust that took place last May warranted a thorough inves-
tigation. The Chief Justice assigned the task to the Mar-
shal of the Supreme Court and her staff. After months of
diligent analysis of forensic evidence and interviews of al-
most 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.” Marshal’s Report of Find-
ings & Recommendations 11 (Jan. 19, 2023). In following
up on all available leads, however, the Marshal’s team per-
formed additional forensic analysis and conducted multiple
follow-up interviews of certain employees. But the team
has to date been unable to identify a person responsible by
a preponderance of the evidence. Id., at 17. A public ver-
sion of the Marshal’s report is attached.
Recently, this Court consulted Michael Chertoff.
Mr. Chertoff is a former Secretary of Homeland Security,
Judge of the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit,
Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division of the
U. S. Department of Justice, and U. S. Attorney for the Dis-
trict of New Jersey. We invited Mr. Chertoff to assess the
Marshal’s investigation. He has advised that the Marshal
“undertook a thorough investigation” and, “[a]t this time, I
cannot identify any additional useful investigative
measures” not already undertaken or underway. State-
ment from Michael Chertoff 1 (2023). A copy of Mr.
Chertoff’s statement is attached.
The Marshal reports that “
nvestigators continue to re-
view and process some electronic data that has been col-
lected and a few other inquiries remain pending.” Mar-
shal’s Report 2. “To the extent that additional investigation
yields new evidence or leads, the investigators will pursue
them.” Ibid. The Marshal and her team will continue to
have our full support.
J ANUARY 19, 2023
