As the US supreme court continues to investigate how a draft copy of the Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision that eliminated nationwide abortion rights was leaked last May, one American news outlet’s sources are saying the court has found justices have been slow to take on security protocols, including using secure servers when sending out sensitive information.
A CNN report Saturday quoted multiple anonymous sources who said justices often use personal email accounts to send sensitive materials, despite the court having secure servers meant to handle such correspondences. Some court employees were nervous about confronting justices about using personal emails rather than the more secure method, the CNN report said.
The justices were “not masters of information security protocol”, a former court employee told CNN.
The sources also told CNN that the court had disparate protocols for handling “burn bags”, or bags that were given to court employees with discarded sensitive physical documents that were meant to be burned or shredded. Each justice has their own burn bag protocol, with some employees stapling burn bags shut and others leaving them open near their desks. Burn bags were sometimes left in the hallway outside chambers.
The employees confirmed there have been other broader security concerns around the court for a while, especially as the Covid-19 pandemic saw many employees working from home.
“This has been going on for years,” one employee told CNN.
The court has been conducting its own investigation into the leak of the Dobbs draft. Last month, it released a 23-page report as a follow-up into the investigation.
Investigators said they have so far “been unable to identify a person responsible by a preponderance of the evidence” after 126 formal interviews with 97 employees who submitted sworn affidavits under the penalty of perjury.
Court marshal Gail Curley, who is leading the investigation, said in a statement last month that “too many personnel have access to certain court-sensitive documents”.
“The current distribution mechanisms result in too many people having access to highly sensitive information and the inability to actively track who is handling and accessing these documents,” she said.
The report noted that the draft opinion was sent around on 10 February of last year to 70 law clerks and permanent court employees. About a month later, eight more employees were emailed the draft. Later, the investigators found two other employees who accessed the draft. Hard drafts were also distributed to some chambers. Thirty-four employees confirmed printing out copies while four said they were unsure. Several said they printed out more than one copy.
One flaw mentioned in the report is that printers at the court are not able to properly log all printing jobs, making it harder for the court to track when sensitive material is being printed. Some employees also have VPN access that allows them to print documents from any computer without being tracked.
People working from home created “gaps in the court’s security” and “created an environment where it was too easy to remove sensitive information from the building and the court’s [information technology] networks”, the report said.
Curley noted in her statement that she “spoke with each of the justices, several on multiple occasions. The justices actively cooperated in this … process, asking questions and answering mine. I followed up on all credible leads, none of which implicated the justices or their spouses.”
However, Curley also said that the supreme court justices weren’t required to sign affidavits during the leak investigation like the other employees were.
