I'm Virginia Allen. I'm Samantha Cheris and this is the daily single top news for Thursday, January 19th.

Here are today's headlines.

The Supreme Court says it's still doesn't know who leaked the draft opinion of Dobbs, the Jackson woman's health organization.

The High Court released a report this afternoon saying that the identity of the leaker remains unknown.

Investigators conducted 126 interviews of 97 employees and all are reported to have denied leaking the document.

Here with us to explain more is Heritage Foundation senior legal fellow and host of the SCOTUS 101 podcast.

John Carlo Conaparo. John Carl, thanks for being here.

Thanks for having me.

So does this strike you as strange that after their initial investigation, the Supreme Court still says they have no idea who leaked this document?

Well, let me correct you slightly. What they say is we don't know by a preponderance of the evidence who did it.

Which could mean a couple of things. It could mean that they have won or a few suspects in mind but they just really can't or don't want to ruin somebody's career.

Without really being sure, it could also mean that they just feel like they're never going to get there and they just want this done so they're ending it.

But the sense I get is that it's over and we're not going to know.

Really? So will there be further investigation? Are they pledging to keep looking into this? Or are they essentially putting this to bed?

It seems to me like they're putting it to bed.

Wow. So what do we know about how this investigation was conducted? And they say that they did 126 interviews.

What was the format of those interviews? What do we know?

Well, we don't know a whole lot except what's reported in this statement. But you'll probably recall that the Supreme Court faced some criticism early on because its investigation was going to be handled by its Marshall service.

Now, the Supreme Court's Marshall service is first and foremost a security staff for the justices.

They are not law enforcement in the way that they have any expertise investigating crimes or conducting any sorts of investigations.

The head of their Marshall service has no experience doing that.

And it does not appear that the Supreme Court attempted to bring in outside law enforcement with say,

...