一个异常的泄漏最高法院意见草案推翻罗伊诉韦德案引发了一部同样非同寻常的推理小说法院员工的小宇宙他们经常接触到该机构最敏感和最机密的文件。
“我认为最有可能的解释是这是一个内部人员，唯一的问题是动机是什么?”卡多佐法律教授凯特·肖说约翰·保罗·史蒂文斯法官和ABC新闻法律分析师。
在法庭历史上，这是第一次，法庭的执行官——该机构鲜为人知的首席运营官，同时也监督着一支独立的警察部队——领导着一支内部调查找出泄露意见稿的来源。
首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨(John Roberts)在周二宣布调查的一份声明中说，“这是对这种信任的单一和令人震惊的破坏，是对法院和在这里工作的公务员群体的侮辱。”。
法院执行官盖尔·柯利罗伯茨说，职业军人律师、西点军校毕业、精通国家安全法的奥巴马将牵头。她的办公室拒绝提供调查将如何进行或是否会公布任何调查结果的细节。
司法部长梅里克·加兰(Merrick Garland)周四拒绝透露司法部或联邦执法部门是否被要求或将参与其中。
调查人员早期的一个重点可能是文件记录，因为意见草案是保密的，不能广泛获取。
熟悉起草过程的消息人士表示，在几个月的时间里，它可以产生几十份草案和数百页文件，特别是在备受瞩目的案件中。
在每个案件的口头辩论之后，法官们进行一次初步的私人投票，然后开始写意见。据前职员说，他们互相传阅副本以获取反馈，通常是以电子方式进行多轮。在此期间，观点和投票可能会发生变化。
“如果是最高法院大楼里的某个人故意把这件事泄露给外面的媒体，那就太不像话了。这真的很糟糕，”NYU法学院副院长、大法官安东宁·斯卡利亚的前秘书雷切尔·巴考说。“只有当每个人都同意某个观点可以发表时，所有的观点才会公之于众。”
Evelyn Hockstein/路透社
堕胎权利和反堕胎示威者在美国最高法院外抗议...
独立的执法分析人士认为，调查人员可能会考虑电脑黑客或电脑疏忽的可能性，例如让一个敏感的系统无人看管，但主要的理论可能是故意行为。
“一个家庭成员，一个朋友，一个在餐馆或医院或类似地方看到意见稿的人，”肖说。“但这些意见，再次，非常紧密。他们通常不会无所事事。”
泄密事件的可能嫌疑人包括九名法官中的每一位;大约30名行政人员在大法官的私人办公室幕后工作;还有37名从事研究和撰写意见草案的法律助理。
“法官们绝对信任我们，”即将退休的斯蒂芬·布雷耶法官的前秘书Thiru Vignarajah说。“有两个不同的服务器——一个用于起草意见，另一个供你做研究——以确保最高法院不会遭到外部黑客攻击。”
谢里夫·格吉斯曾是塞缪尔·阿利托法官告诉美国广播公司新闻，泄漏的后果是众所周知的和令人信服的威慑。
现在是圣母大学法学教授的Girgis说:“当你开始时，有一种非常强烈的未言明的保密意识会被清楚地表达出来。”“这些职员有极高的个人动机不去做这样的事情，因为这样会完全毁掉他们在严肃的法律职业生涯中的机会。”
调查人员不仅希望知道是谁泄露了草案，还希望知道为什么——特别是这一行为背后是否有政治动机。1920年的意大利征兵多布斯诉杰克逊妇女健康案注明“初稿”，日期为2月10日;法院的最终判决预计要到6月底。
“法院真的比任何其他法院都更依赖公众的看法，即它在做一些与政治无关的事情。这看起来不像是政治以外的事情，”Barkow说。
政治，哪个首次获得意见草案称其来源是一位“熟悉法院审议的人士”专家表示，如果一名员工内幕被曝光，他或她可能会被解雇、制裁或取消律师资格。
然而，如果泄密是由法官直接实施的，潜在的惩罚就不那么明确了。“除了弹劾之外，你没有多少办法来制裁最高法院的法官，”肖说。
对法院公信力的打击发生在一个关键时刻，在任期结束前，不仅在堕胎问题上，而且在学校祈祷、移民和持枪权问题上，都有望做出重大裁决。
“我发现很难想象明年一个健康运作的法院，如果泄漏的人没有被确认，公开确认并为此受到制裁，”Girgis说。
其他观察员强调，可能的裁决本身----推翻Roe诉Wade案，该案在近50年后被认为已经解决并重申了先例----将对法院的声誉造成最大的损害。
“我们将在接下来的几天或几周内谈论这次泄漏，但我们将谈论这一决定的影响——如果它持续十年或一代人的话，”Vignarajah说。“我们正在处理美国历史上最具分歧的问题之一，并把它变回一个政治足球。”
Supreme Court leak probe likely to focus on justices, clerks, and staff
The extraordinary leak of adraft Supreme Court opinionto overturn Roe v. Wade has triggered an equally extraordinary whodunnit focused on asmall universe of court employeeswho have regular access to the institution's most sensitive and confidential documents.
"I think the most likely explanation is that it's an insider, and the only question is what is the motive?" said Cardozo Law professor Kate Shaw, a former clerk toJustice John Paul Stevensand ABC News legal analyst.
For the first time in court history, the Marshal of the Court – the institution's little known chief operations officer, who also oversees an independent police force – is leading aninternal investigationto identify the source of a leaked opinion draft.
"This was a singular and egregious breach of that trust that is an affront to the Court and the community of public servants who work here," Chief Justice John Roberts said in a statement Tuesday announcing the probe.
Court MarshalGail Curley, a career Army lawyer and West Point graduate with expertise in national security law, will take the lead, Roberts said. Her office has declined to provide details on how the investigation will be conducted or whether any findings will be made public.
Attorney General Merrick Garland declined Thursday to say whether any Justice Department or federal law enforcement resources have been requested or would be involved.
A likely key early focus of investigators will be the paper trail, since draft opinions are closely-held and not widely accessible.
Sources familiar with the drafting process said it can produce dozens of drafts and hundreds of pages of documents over the course of several months, particularly in high-profile cases.
After oral arguments in each case, the justices take an initial private vote and then begin writing opinions. They circulate copies among each other for feedback, often in multiple rounds electronically, according to former clerks. During that time views – and votes – can change.
"If it was the case that somebody from inside the Supreme Court's building deliberately leaked this outside to the press, it's outrageous. It's really awful," said Rachel Barkow, vice dean of NYU Law School and a former clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia. "It's only when everyone agrees an opinion is ready to go out that all the opinions go public."
Independent law enforcement analysts suggested investigators were likely to consider the possibility of a computer hack or computer carelessness -- such as leaving a sensitive system unattended -- but that the primary theory would likely be a deliberate act.
"A family member, a friend, someone who came across an opinion draft left in a restaurant or a hospital or something like that," said Shaw. "But these opinions, again, are very closely held. They're ordinarily not left sitting around."
Possible suspects in the leak include each of the nine justices; roughly 30 administrative staff who work behind the scenes in the justices' private chambers; and, the 37 law clerks who do research and writing of draft opinions.
"The justices trusted us implicitly," said Thiru Vignarajah, a former clerk to retiring Justice Stephen Breyer. "There were two different servers -- one for draft opinions and another for you to do your research -- to make sure that an external hack didn't happen to the Supreme Court."
Sherif Gergis, a former clerk forJustice Samuel Alito, told ABC News the consequences for leaking were a widely known and compelling deterrent.
"There's a very strong unspoken sense of confidentiality that does get spelled out when you begin," Girgis, now a Notre Dame Law professor, said. "The clerks have extremely high personal incentives not to do anything like this because of the way that it could completely ruin their chances at a serious legal career."
Investigators will hope to learn not just who leaked the draft but why -- specifically whether there a political motive behind the act. The Alito draft inDobbs v. Jackson Women's Healthwas marked "first draft" and dated Feb. 10;the court's final decisionis not expected until the end of June.
"The court really relies more than any other on the perception of the public that it's doing something other than politics. And this doesn't look like something other than politics," Barkow said.
Politico, whichfirst obtainedthe draft opinion, identified its source as a "person familiar with the court's deliberations." If an employee insider is outed, experts said he or she could be fired, sanctioned or disbarred as a lawyer.
However, if the leak was perpetrated by a justice directly, potential punishment is less clear. "There's not a whole lot you can do to sanction a Supreme Court justice short of impeachment," said Shaw.
The blow to the court's credibility comes at a critical moment ahead of expected major rulings on not just abortion but school prayer, immigration and gun rights before the end of the term.
"I find it very hard to imagine a healthy functioning court next year if the person who made the leak isn't identified, publicly identified and sanctioned for it," Girgis said.
Other observers emphasized that the likely decision itself -- overturning Roe v. Wade after almost 50 years of being considered settled and reaffirmed precedent -- would do the most damage to the court's reputation.
"We'll talk about this leak for the next few days or the next couple weeks, but we will be talking about the impact of this decision -- if it holds -- for a decade or a generation," said Vignarajah. "And we're taking one of the most divisive issues in American history and turning it back into a political football."
