Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the court.

I'm John Carlo Conoparo.

I'm Zach Smith.

And welcome to SCOTUS 101, where we break down what's happening at the Supreme Court, what the justices are up to, and other things related to our favorite branch of government.

Welcome back to another episode of SCOTUS 101. G. related to our favorite branch of government.

Welcome back to another episode of SCOTUS 101.

G.C., we received some news last week about the Supreme Court's investigation into the Dobbs leak.

What can you tell us about that?

Yes, so the court issued a report last week on its investigation into the leaker and essentially admitted that it has failed to identify the person. The investigation is not technically closed, according to the report,

but the report conveys the court's more or less final conclusion that the leaker will not be found.

Unfortunately, I think that's right. You know, the Chief Justice tasked the Supreme Court

Marshal with conducting the investigation. Now, based on the report issued by the

marshal, she hired outside help and looked at a number of people in potential avenues

through which the leak could have occurred. Still, some basic investigative steps that are

typical in a criminal investigation were missing.

The report says the Marshall asked for and received phone records and call logs from certain employees,

but there's no mention of subpoenas or warrants being sought for that information.

Now, of course, she wouldn't have the authority to unilaterally issue subpoenas or warrants,

but those are typical steps that

you would expect to see in a normal criminal investigative process, though again they would

likely have to involve DOJ for those types of things to be sought. Now, the report also mentions

that some employees admitted to violating the court's confidentiality requirements by telling their

...