BREAKING: Dobbs leaker still unknown after Supreme Court investigation

According to Fox News, "an investigation by the US Supreme Court has failed to identify the culprit who leaked a draft Court decision that signaled the overturning of Roe v. Wade."

After the leak, Chief Justice John Roberts tasked the Marshal of the Court to get to the bottom of who gave Politico the information.

On June 24, in a 6-3 decision stemming from the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, the Supreme Court ruled that "The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives."

After the leak abortion activists railed about the decision, and the radical pro-abortion group "Jane's Revenge" escalated the matter with a string of firebomb and vandalism attacks on pro-life centers across the country.

Fox News reports that the investigation centered on roughly "three dozen" law clerks who were employed by the justices and that they "were asked to turn over their phones"

In the official report released by the court, they stated, "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."

"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'," according to the report.

Former Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff assisted in the investigation.

Chertoff released a report attached to the courts which read, "I was asked by the Chief Justice to independently review and assess the thoroughness of the investigation into the Dobbs draft opinion leak and to identify any additional useful investigative measures as well as actions that would improve the handling of sensitive documents in the future."

Certoff's recommendations were: "1. Restricting the distribution of hard copy versions of sensitive documents; 2. Restricting email distribution for sensitive documents; 3. Utilizing information rights management (IRM) tools to better control how sensitive documents are used, edited and shared; and 4. Limiting the access of sensitive information on outside mobile devices."

The Marshall's report, also attached to the court's, confirmed that the leaker had to be someone who worked internally as forensics of the IT infrastructure confirmed it was not penetrated by outside actors. The Marshall's also confirmed that the leaker broke multiple rules and laws including internal policies and federal statutes, such as "18 U.S.C. § 371" which "prohibits two or more persons from conspiring to commit an offense against the United States or to defraud the United States in any manner or for any purpose."

The Marshall concluded, "Too many personnel have access to certain Court-sensitive documents."

The Marshall said, "The Court’s information security policies are outdated and need to be clarified and updated" and "There are inadequate safeguards in place to track the printing and copying of sensitive documents."

The Marshall also said that from the interviews, "Many personnel appear not to have properly understood the Court’s policies on confidentiality."

This is a breaking story and will be updated.