New Details Show Leak Of Supreme Court’s Roe Reversal Could Have Come From Pretty Much Anyone
from the safe-as-unlocked-abandoned-houses dept
The leak of the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision helped everyone. It helped people who supported the overturning of Roe v. Wade consolidate their power so they could effectively punish people for trying to escape unwanted pregnancies. It helped supporters of abortion rights prepare for the coming wave of anti-abortion legislation, much of it containing Dobbs-dependent triggers.
The identity of the person who leaked the decision is still unknown. That nearly everyone on either side of the issue had the motivation to give the nation a sneak preview of the precedent headed their way. Given that the list of suspects continues to include anyone with access to the decision, it’s unlikely the leaker will ever be named and shamed/praised.
But there are much more banal and tragically comical reasons the leaker may never be discovered. As CNN reports, SCOTUS security measures (at least in terms of draft opinions, etc.) range from “lax” to “nonexistent.”
The investigation report [PDF] released publicly does not contain these details. These come from a number of sources familiar with the inner workings of the Supreme Court and the habits of the justices who serve the nation’s top court.
None of this looks good.
New details revealed to CNN by multiple sources familiar with the court’s operations offer an even more detailed picture of yearslong lax internal procedures that could have endangered security, led to the leak and hindered an investigation into the culprit.
Supreme Court employees also used printers that didn’t produce logs – or were able to print sensitive documents off-site without tracking – and “burn bags” meant to ensure the safe destruction of materials were left open and unattended in hallways.
“This has been going on for years,” one former employee said.
No one expects Supreme Court justices to be tech wizards, but one would expect a basic level of competence. And things like leaving burn bags unattended and unsealed has nothing to do with understanding tech intricacies and everything to do with assuming no one has any interest in Supreme Court documents until they’re officially released.
The use of personal email addresses — something else detailed in the CNN report — appears to be nothing more than justices using the option they felt most comfortable using, even if they were aware more secure options were available. You can’t FOIA the Supreme Court, so this isn’t a malicious attempt to keep otherwise public information out of the public’s hands.
The lack of secured access to printers, however, is more concerning. This can’t be pinned solely on SCOTUS justices’ carelessness. That’s a backend problem that should have been handled by the court’s IT department. But this method of controlling document distribution (a method used to track down leakers working for other government agencies) was apparently never fully implemented. And, again, the most obvious explanation for this is that no one handling document security ever thought anything of public interest was being printed by the court or its staffers.
Now, everyone’s finding out just how wrong they were about the possibility that draft opinions might walk out of the building. Once assumed to be hovering near zero percent, the likelihood of a future opinion overturning years of precedent making its way to the public before the Supreme Court is ready to release it is steadily gaining votes for “Most Likely To Happen.”
On top of smuggling docs out to ignite partisan fires, there are other concerns the Supreme Court needs to address. The nation’s top court also hears cases dealing with national security issues. Given its nonexistent control of information flowing into the court, the only surprising thing about the Dobbs leak is that the nation’s top court hasn’t been the source of leaks detailing surveillance efforts or overseas operations.
Filed Under: burn bags, dobbs, leak, supreme court


Comments on “New Details Show Leak Of Supreme Court’s Roe Reversal Could Have Come From Pretty Much Anyone”
ON the one hand, I am disheartened to hear that for all the bluster about the importance of secrecy, secret documents were handled with about as much secrecy as the eponymous scarlet letter.
On the other hand, I am absolutely crushed that prior assumptions that “not being able to track down a culprit” probably meant it was a SCOTUS judge are also torpedoed, because that was based on trusting prior SCOTUS claims about secrecy.
… that we know of.
Tech wizards
“No one expects Supreme Court justices to be tech wizards”
In today’s world maybe that should be an expectation.
When people who don’t understand the technology are being entrusted to make final decisions about it, we shouldn’t be surprised when they make irrational and harmful choices.
Copyright, social media, liability, data sharing, artificial intelligence and whatever else is coming down the pipe these days all require someone with a good understanding of what they are considering.
Of course they didn’t mention which private email providers the Justices are using…
because no one ever hacks email.
Ensure Justice is done
They need to arrest everyone to ensure the guilty are punished.
The Leak Could Have Come From Nobody!
SCOTUS seems to have been using some notoriously insecure software packages.
removing documents
Anyone with access to a computer can copy a file onto a thumb drive and take it home. Is the Supreme Court really going to insist that everyone use computers with no USB ports?
Re: No USB Laptop For SCOTUS -- Why Not?
It should be impossible to use a thumb drive or any non-government issued electronics within SCOTUS. On entry and departure, security should check for illicit electronics. No private mobile devices should be allowed within SCOTUS.
SCOTUS should probably issue a no-port laptop to a staff member. SCOTUS work should only be doable on a Virtual Machine that has no access to local storage. A staff member should have no admin privileges on the laptop and have no ability to install unapproved software. To work at home, a staff member should use a secure VPN to get on the internal SCOTUS intranet from a secure SCOTUS virtual machine on the no-port laptop. There should be no ability to transfer a remote file from a SCOTUS server to the laptop’s internal storage. The staff member should not be able to mount his own remote file system on the SCOTUS VM. SCOTUS VM apps should be unable to access the staff member’s private network.
There are few other needed security features, but none of them would be particularly burdensome for a SCOTUS staff member that needs to work at home. A SCOTUS staff member is probably only doing word processing and reading on his laptop.
Re:
There are ways to easily disable USB ports on Windows machines with the Group Policy Editor. Many enterprises do this to prevent unapproved storage devices from connecting. You don’t even have to physically remove the ports.
Also, as laptops are moving to USB-PD for charging using a USB Type-C port (the latest standard supports up to 240 W), completely portless laptops are going to be harder to source in the future.