Even months after the U.S. Supreme Court's most current term began in October, the identity of the person or people who leaked a draft opinion in May overturning Roe v. Wade has not been revealed.
That month, Politico received access to a draft of Justice Samuel Alito's majority opinion, which sparked a social media uproar. Chief Justice John Roberts of the Supreme Court described the leak of a draft opinion as "absolutely appalling" and said there would be an investigation to find out who was responsible.
“The draft opinion is a full-throated, unflinching repudiation of the 1973 decision which guaranteed federal constitutional protections of abortion rights and a subsequent 1992 decision – Planned Parenthood v. Casey – that largely maintained the right,” Politico reported.
“Roe was egregiously wrong from the start,” Alito wrote. “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,” he noted further in the leaked document, labeled as the “Opinion of the Court.”
Who the leaker or leakers may have been has been the subject of extensive conjecture.
“…[I]f you look at the way that the evidence has piled up, Democrats have used this, including the White House," Fox News host and contributor Katie Pavlich, Townhall.com editor, noted shortly after the leak. They’ve tried to ignore the leak, to push it aside, as Jen Psaki said when it first came out, to focus on the issue of Roe versus Wade.
"And it follows a pattern of Democrats trying to undermine the court, whether it’s with court-packing or going after Supreme Court nominees that happen to be appointed by a Republican, trying to get their nomination thrown out. And, of course, you’ve had Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer standing on the steps of the court just last year during a hearing on a case about abortion threatening Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch on that very issue. So it follows the left-leaning pattern, but we do not know who the leaker is,” she concluded.
In a June interview with Newsmax TV, Republican Rep. Matt Rosendale of Montana asserted that he was certain that at least some of the justices were aware of the identity of the leaker.
“We all could probably agree that the justices that were appointed by Democrat presidents know who the leaker was,” he said. “What bothers me, it’s not only the undermining that it did of the institution and the trust factor that these folks have with each other,” it’s that now that the trust is broken, “it’s very difficult to restore it.”
He continued by saying that, even if he is unsure whether the publishing of the draft opinion was illegal, it is undoubtedly against the law to demonstrate in front of a justice of the Supreme Court with the intention of intimidating them into altering their mind about a decision.
“It is a federal crime to go in and try and get a justice to change their vote,” said Rosendale. “To try and influence the outcome of a court decision is a crime. It’s a federal crime, and again, we see the Department of Justice is laying down on the job and not pursuing these people that are trying to intimidate them.”
The Montana Republican expected that the individual or individuals who leaked the information will eventually come to light.
“There could be more people involved, and those people could go all the way to the top,” he said.
“Don’t eliminate the judges because you know people, so there’s no way that would happen. No way. Think about it. Michael Sussmann is on trial right now for Russiagate. That happened six years ago. We’re only getting answers right now. I hope it doesn’t take another six years to get answers to what happened at the Supreme Court.”