OPINION: This article may contain commentary which reflects the author's opinion.
President Joe Biden and his administration just got smacked with more bad news as the U.S. Supreme Court has decided to hear two crucial cases that the administration didn’t want before the court.
One case could scale back the reach of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the other involves an attempt to revive a rule that screens out potentially government-dependent immigrants. The court’s decisions come as migrants continue to illegally cross the U.S. southern border and the Biden administration develops a strategy for dealing with climate change.
The court also decided to hear West Virginia v. EPA, which involves energy-producing states and coal companies accusing the EPA of a power grab. States claim the EPA has exceeded its authority to limit carbon emissions, which environmentalists allege contribute to climate change.
The Supreme Court made headlines last week after an investigation into who leaked a draft opinion in the landmark Dobbs v. Jackson case last May did not reveal any possible names.
The Supreme Court released its report on Thursday into who might have leaked the draft opinion, which overturned the Court’s controversial precedent in Roe v. Wade on a “constitutional right” to abortion and returned the issue to the states.
Fox’s Stuart Varney drops big news on the Supreme Court “leaker”investigation: pic.twitter.com/VTV1AIl5z0
— Patriot Alerts (@alerts___) January 20, 2023
The investigation concluded without identifying the source of the leak to Politico last year:
The investigation by the marshal of the Supreme Court included a forensic investigation of laptops and phones but found “no relevant information from these devices.” The marshal’s office determined that 82 employees had access to the opinion and interviewed 97 employees, all of whom denied leaking the opinion.
In addition, the marshal investigated connections between employees and contacts in the media, with a particular focus on Politico. They also followed up on social media claims of who might have leaked the decision, but “investigators found nothing to substantiate any of the social media allegations.”
“Some individuals admitted to investigators that they told their spouse or partner about the draft Dobbs opinion and the vote count, in violation of the Court’s confidentiality rules,” the investigation reads.
The report states that the court conducted interviews with nearly 100 employees, but does not discuss any interviews of the justices themselves.
Several have pointed out that it seems odd that none of the justices appear to have been interviewed in the investigation:
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 investigation. The Chief Justice assigned the task to the Marshal of the Supreme Court and her staff. 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.” Marshal’s Report of Findings & Recommendations 11 (Jan. 19, 2023). In following up on all available leads, however, the Marshal’s team performed 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 version 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 District 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. Statement from Michael Chertoff 1 (2023). A copy of Mr. Chertoff’s statement is attached.
Texas GOP Sen. Ted Cruz recently offered his opinion of who he believes leaked the draft to Politico.