Investigate the leak of the Supreme Court and special treatment, legislators have urged
As part of the investigation, the Marshal’s office, which is normally mainly responsible for the judges’ guarantee, conducted 126 interviews with 97 employees of the court, concluding that 82 of them had access to the project, in addition to the nine judges. But the investigation focused mainly on staff such as clerics or other employees, rather than judges.
(Judge Stephen Breyer was still on the ground at the time, having not yet been replaced by judge Ketanji Brown Jackson).
In a follow -up declaration last week, Marshal Gail A. Curley said that she did not think it was necessary to ask the judges to sign affidavits under oath, because the other employees of the court had been required.
“During the investigation, I spoke with each of the judges, several on several occasions,” said Curley. “The judges have actively cooperated in this iterative process, asking questions and answering mine. I followed all the credible tracks, which was not involved in judges or their spouses. ”
The letter from Take back The court underlined the attention which had been directed to the Alito judge following a New York Times report From November, which revealed that a former anti-abortion leader had learned of the result of another alito-majority decision in 2014 before his public release after his friends dined with justice and his wife. The letter from Lipton-Lubet to legislators asked if Alito had been questioned about this 2014 case and if his contacts with anti-abortion activists have been studied.
“Employees of the Supreme Court would be vulnerable to a wide range of sanctions, including the cessation of employment and damage to future career prospects, if they have proven to be induced in the Marshal investigation. On the other hand, judges benefit from appointments and are practically impossible to withdraw from functions,” wrote Lipton-Lubet.
“Why, then, did the marshal thought that the additional threat of legal danger was necessary to ensure honest cooperation by the staff of the court, while refusing to submit judges to the same legal vulnerability?” Lipton-Lubet added.
The representatives of Durbin and Jordan did not respond to requests for comments.
Jordan, who took control of his committee when the Republicans acquired a slim majority in the House of Representatives in the mid-term elections in November, said that he wanted to hold hearings on other questions involving the FBI, immigrants crossing the border with Mexico and the storage of President Joe Biden of classified documents in his private house.
But representative Darrell Issa, a Republican of California and member of the committee, said that he wanted a more in -depth examination of the flight.
“The flight of the Supreme Court is not closed”, Issa said on Twitter Last week. “The Congress must investigate and complete an appropriate and complete manner.”
