DLNews Legal Eagle:

A 20-page report from the US Supreme Court marshal's office has been made public. It's unclear if the document in question was the leaky draft opinion about abortion, but the report does contain some revelations about court personnel and procedures. However, it fails to address a fundamental question: how did it get from the courthouse to Politico?

The investigation began on May 2, after Politico published a leaked draft opinion. Chief Justice John Roberts asked for an internal investigation and ordered the marshal to launch one. While the document was not formally classified, the marshal could not determine the source, though she found some evidence that some employees had access to sensitive information.

However, one of the most critical questions to the Supreme Court is what went wrong. The leak tainted the Court's reputation and the integrity of the judiciary. And it could have significant long-term effects on the Supreme Court itself.

The report, written by the former federal judge who serves as the Court's chief security officer, concludes that "the court's technology and operations do not meet current standards." In addition, the report notes that "too many court personnel" have access to sensitive material. This includes clerks, attorneys, and lawyers. Some court staff also allegedly told their spouses about their votes.

The Court's decision to keep the investigation in-house indicates that the justices are concerned about their standing. Several clerks have been questioned and asked to swear in affidavits. Many have denied their responsibilities. Others have said they did not know who to turn to. Still, others have said they did not have enough time to do their jobs correctly.

A trove of cell phones belonging to court employees was found during the investigation. Curley's report also notes that employees have been asked to delete their cell phones. That, too, may have been the source of the leak.

Curley's report also suggests that a member of the Court's staff may have leaked the document to Politico. She notes that an employee "may have felt a duty to share the document with the media," but she is unsure who that employee was. If that's the case, it will make for a great Hollywood blockbuster. 

The most obvious thing about leaking the draft opinion is that it reversed a half-century of abortion precedents. And it could be the first step toward overturning Mississippi's abortion law. But it doesn't answer the most critical question about the investigation, which is why it was conducted in the first place.

Although the investigation hasn't yielded any definitive answers, the results have sparked an interesting conversation. One executive director of the group Takes Back the Court has questioned why the Court hasn't taken any action in the past on ethics concerns. Another has suggested that it's time to reconsider the Court's priorities and increase the number of justices.

On the other hand, the report does not include any interviews with sitting jurists. This is a huge omission. The information does mention 97 "personnel" who participated in the investigation, but it doesn't say whether they were questioned.