Federal investigators have revisited the unauthorized disclosure of a draft Supreme Court opinion overturning Roe v. Wade, reopening questions about who released the document after an extensive internal investigation failed to identify the source.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
WASHINGTON — The Justice Department is reportedly pursuing a criminal investigation into the 2022 leak of the Supreme Court’s draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade, renewing federal scrutiny of an unprecedented disclosure that exposed the justices’ private deliberations before one of the most consequential rulings in decades.
The investigation concerns the May 2, 2022, publication by Politico of a draft majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. The document revealed that a majority of the court was prepared to overturn the constitutional abortion protections established under Roe v. Wade in 1973.
The FBI announced in May 2025 that it was committing additional investigative resources to the unresolved leak. However, the Justice Department has not publicly identified a suspect, announced criminal charges or disclosed the full scope of any subsequent proceedings.
According to The Washington Post’s reporting on the renewed FBI investigation, then-Deputy FBI Director Dan Bongino said the bureau was revisiting several high-profile cases involving potential public corruption.
Bongino said FBI Director Kash Patel and senior officials had reviewed unresolved investigations that attracted substantial public attention and decided to devote additional resources to examining them.
The cases included the Supreme Court opinion leak, pipe bombs discovered near the Republican and Democratic national committee headquarters before the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot, and cocaine found at the White House in 2023.
The original Supreme Court leak investigation began almost immediately after Politico published the draft opinion.
Chief Justice John Roberts confirmed the document’s authenticity May 3, 2022, while emphasizing that it did not represent a final decision by the court.
Roberts directed Supreme Court Marshal Gail Curley to investigate how the document had been obtained and disclosed.
The court ultimately issued its decision June 24, 2022, overturning Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey and returning substantial authority over abortion regulation to individual states.
The final opinion closely resembled Alito’s leaked draft.
The unauthorized disclosure prompted demonstrations outside the Supreme Court and the homes of several justices, increased security measures and substantial political debate over abortion policy.
The court’s internal investigation continued for approximately eight months before officials released their findings in January 2023.
According to the Supreme Court marshal’s official investigative report, investigators conducted 126 formal interviews involving 97 court employees and examined electronic devices, computer networks, printing records and available communications.
The investigation found that 82 employees had access to electronic or printed copies of the draft opinion.
Investigators examined whether the disclosure resulted from unauthorized computer access, deliberate transmission of the document or negligent handling of confidential materials.
They found no forensic evidence identifying the source and determined that an outside intrusion into the court’s computer systems was unlikely.
The report concluded that investigators could not identify the person responsible by a preponderance of the evidence.
Several employees acknowledged handling confidential materials inconsistently with court policies, but investigators did not establish that those actions caused the leak.
The court also examined allegations circulating on social media concerning individual law clerks and their possible connections to journalists. Investigators found no evidence substantiating those accusations.
Curley interviewed the justices but did not require sworn statements because investigators had uncovered no credible leads implicating them or their spouses.
The inquiry identified significant weaknesses in the court’s information security practices, including insufficient controls over printed documents and confidential electronic files.
Investigators recommended tighter restrictions on access to sensitive materials, improved tracking of printing and copying, and additional safeguards for judicial communications.
The court characterized the incident as a serious breach of institutional trust and warned that unauthorized disclosures could undermine the confidentiality necessary for judicial deliberations.
Whether the leak itself constitutes a federal crime remains a significant legal question.
A Congressional Research Service analysis published May 10, 2022 examined whether existing criminal statutes could apply to the unauthorized disclosure of a draft Supreme Court opinion.
The report noted that no federal statute specifically criminalizes the disclosure of an unpublished judicial opinion.
Legal consequences could depend on how the document was obtained, whether government property was unlawfully taken and whether other criminal conduct accompanied the disclosure.
An employee who violated court confidentiality policies could face professional discipline even if the conduct did not satisfy the elements of a federal crime.
Unauthorized computer access, theft or other independently unlawful actions could present different legal questions.
Those distinctions could become important if federal prosecutors identify the person who supplied the document to Politico.
The publication itself also raises press freedom considerations because journalists generally have constitutional protections when reporting lawfully obtained information of public significance.
Press freedom organizations have questioned the criminal investigation, particularly whether authorities might attempt to compel reporters to disclose confidential sources.
Reporters Without Borders and other organizations called for greater transparency concerning the FBI’s investigation, arguing that federal authorities had not adequately explained the suspected criminal conduct underlying the renewed inquiry.
The organizations also warned that aggressive investigative measures directed at journalists could discourage confidential sources from providing information to news organizations.
Supporters of identifying the leaker have argued that the unauthorized disclosure compromised the court’s deliberative process and damaged confidence in the judiciary.
The dispute has persisted because the original investigation failed to establish whether the leak was deliberate, accidental or the result of improperly secured documents.
The renewed investigation comes as the Trump administration faces increased congressional scrutiny following Democratic victories in Tuesday’s midterm elections.
Democrats preparing to control both chambers of Congress in January have indicated that they intend to examine the Justice Department’s investigative priorities and handling of politically sensitive matters.
The Supreme Court leak remains politically significant more than four years after the Dobbs decision because of its consequences for abortion policy and the debate over judicial independence.
Although the FBI publicly confirmed renewed investigative attention in 2025, the latest reported criminal inquiry has not produced a publicly identified suspect or announced prosecution.
As of Thursday, Nov. 5, the identity of the person responsible for the 2022 disclosure remains unknown, and authorities have not established whether the circumstances of the leak support federal criminal charges.
Original article
Comments