As part of the investigation, the Marshal’s office, normally primarily responsible for ensuring the safety of judges, conducted 126 interviews with 97 court officials and denied nine judges plus 82 access to drafts. concluded. However, the investigation focused primarily on personnel such as legal officers and other employees rather than judges.
(Judge Stephen Breyer was still in court at the time and had not yet been replaced by Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson).
In a follow-up statement last week, Marshall Gale A. Curley said he believed there was no need to ask the judge to sign the affidavit because other court officials were needed.
“During the course of the investigation, I spoke with multiple judges on multiple occasions,” Curley said. I have tracked down all credible leads, none of which involved the judge or his spouse.”
A letter from Take Back the Court highlighted the attention directed at Judge Alito. New York Times report In November 2014, a former anti-abortion leader learned of the outcome of another Alito majority decision in 2014 before it was publicly announced after a friend dined with a judge and his wife. It became clear that Lipton Luvett’s letter to lawmakers questioned whether Alito was questioned about this 2014 issue and whether his contacts with anti-abortion activists were studied.
“A Supreme Court official could face a wide range of sanctions if found to have misled the Marshal’s investigation, including termination of employment and damage to future career prospects. enjoys a lifetime appointment and is virtually impossible to remove,” Lipton-Lubett wrote.
“Why, then, did the Marshal consider the additional threat of legal peril necessary to ensure good faith cooperation by the court staff, yet refused to expose the judges to the same legal vulnerability? Is it?” Added Lipton Lubett.
Representatives for Durbin and Jordan did not respond to requests for comment.
Jordan, who took control of the committee when Republicans won a narrow House majority in the November midterm elections, has heard public hearings about the FBI, immigration across the border with Mexico, and other issues with President Joe Biden’s vaults. He said he would like to hold a meeting of classified documents in his private home.
But Rep. Darrell Issa, a California Republican and a member of the committee, has indicated that he wants more scrutiny of the leak.
‘Supreme Court Leaks Doesn’t Mean Case Solved’ Issa said on Twitter last week. “Congress must investigate in a proper and comprehensive manner.”