OMITTED

What the news leaves out.

← Omitted front page

DOJ Opens Criminal Probe Into Supreme Court Dobbs Leak

6 sources · updated 2026-11-06
Left 17% Center 0% Right 83%
1 left · 0 center · 5 right

What happened

On May 2, 2022, Politico published a draft majority opinion by Justice Samuel Alito in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, then still pending at the Supreme Court; on June 24, 2022 the Court issued its decision in that case, overruling Roe v. Wade (the 1973 ruling that had recognized a constitutional right to abortion) and returning abortion policy to the states. Chief Justice John Roberts called the disclosure a "singular and egregious breach" of trust and ordered an internal investigation by Supreme Court Marshal Gail Curley, which interviewed 97 employees who had access to the draft, dated February 10, 2022; a January 2023 report said investigators could not identify who leaked it by a preponderance of the evidence and found no evidence that an outside hacker had obtained the document. The Justice Department is now conducting a criminal investigation into the leak, overseen by U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro with prosecutor Carlton Davis and career prosecutors, and investigators have recently issued grand jury subpoenas seeking information from people who worked at the Court in 2022. A department spokesperson declined to confirm or deny the existence of the investigation, and it remains unclear what criminal statute prosecutors believe may have been violated.
Sourcing check · Partly on the record · 6 articles

2 of 6 articles cite a named source for the story. It was on the record from the first report.

What these terms mean and how they're counted
On the record · names a source 2 of 6
On the record means the article cites a source by name for the story's main claim: a person, or an institution speaking officially, such as a company statement or a named agency's spokesperson. The opposite is an unnamed source. The count is how many of the counted articles cite at least one such source; the names are everyone named across them, each once however the articles spell it. Here: Jeanine Pirro, New York Times, John Roberts and Samuel Alito
Primary evidence · cites a document or data 1 of 6
Primary evidence means the article cites a record you could check yourself: a court filing or ruling, a dataset or report, a recording or transcript, an official statement or press release, market data. A quote is not a document. The count is how many articles cite one. Here: grand jury subpoenas, internal investigation report
Credits another outlet 1 of 6
The article says the story comes from another outlet's reporting (“first reported by Reuters”). Those articles relay the story; they are not independent confirmation. Here: New York Times
Unnamed sources 5 of 6
The main claim is attributed to people who are not identified: “people familiar with the matter”, “officials said”. The count is how many articles do this.
How it developed
When the first report landed and whether it named anyone; when the first named source and the first document appeared. Here: First report Nov 5, 16:05 UTC by Daily Wire, naming its source. First document in the first report, from Daily Wire (grand jury subpoenas).
Not counted 0
Opinion, analysis and video pieces, and articles too short to assess. Every count above is out of the counted articles. An article republished under a new headline is one article.
This is about who is cited, not whether the story is true. Each source below says what it names. How we count
Omitted — what each side leaves out

Unpacked

Left-leaning coverage leaves out the Supreme Court's own failed investigation, so the new Justice Department case looks like a first intrusion rather than a second try. Right-leaning coverage in the Daily Wire and the New York Post reports that Chief Justice John Roberts ordered an internal inquiry that closed without a culprit. The Daily Wire adds that 97 employees with access to the draft were interviewed. Without that backdrop, a reader cannot tell whether prosecutors are reopening an unsolved breach or newly entering the Court's files. Left-leaning coverage leads with the clash of branches, boiling the story down to an inquiry that "takes the Trump administration into the inner workings of the court." Right-leaning coverage opens on the unsolved leak and the new subpoenas, and holds the separation-of-powers problem for later. Did the justices ask the Justice Department to open a criminal case, or did prosecutors start one on their own?
Bottom line

The New York Times cast the Dobbs leak probe as Trump walking into the Court and never mentioned that a 2023 marshal investigation already questioned staff and identified no one.

The receipts — 5 facts one side's coverage lacks
  • The Court's January 2023 investigation closed without identifying the leaker official statementin Daily Wire, New York Post · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • It remains unclear what criminal statute prosecutors believe was violated, and disclosing a draft opinion may not itself be a federal crime contextin Daily Wire · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • The Supreme Court has no specific law prohibiting the unauthorized release of its internal records contextin Daily Wire · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • Court employees had to sign sworn statements denying they leaked the draft; the justices were not required to submit the same affidavits contextin Daily Wire · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • Some potentially applicable federal laws have a five-year statute of limitations that could expire in spring 2027 numberin Daily Wire · absent from left-leaning coverage
The Left View
The New York Times presents the story as investigators "accelerating an inquiry that takes the Trump administration into the inner workings of the court," foregrounding subpoenas and other law-enforcement powers. That framing casts the probe as an executive-branch foray into the Supreme Court's internal operations rather than as a routine effort to close an unsolved leak.
The Right View
Right-leaning outlets describe the criminal probe as bringing a four-year unsolved breach back into the spotlight after the Court's own investigation failed, and they stress the leak's human stakes: Justice Alito called it a "grave breach" that "very predictably" made the five justices in the Dobbs majority "targets for assassination," and Nicholas Roske was later sentenced for an armed plot at Justice Brett Kavanaugh's home. They note President Trump's statement that the leaker "should be found," Alito's remark that he has a hunch but that the evidence is not strong enough to identify anyone, and possible charges including theft of government property or false statements during the Marshal's inquiry. These sources also report legal experts questioning whether disclosing a draft opinion is itself a federal crime, a potential spring 2027 statute-of-limitations deadline, and Justices Elena Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett saying the Court should continue to pursue the matter.
Our Take (balanced)
The left's strongest argument is that criminal process and subpoenas pull the Trump administration into the Court's inner workings without a clearly applicable statute — the New York Times's core frame, reinforced by scholars who warn that an investigation "without a viable criminal basis" could amount to the executive branch "harassing the judiciary" while the Court hears cases central to the president's agenda. The right's strongest argument is that a "singular and egregious breach" went unsolved by the Court's own inquiry and was followed by assassination threats against sitting justices, so grand-jury process and existing statutes on theft of government property or false statements are a conventional response, not a novel weaponization. The central unresolved tension is whether this investigation is accountability for a grave institutional leak or an executive intrusion into judicial deliberations in the absence of a crime clearly defined by statute.

6 sources

More stories

The week's bottom lines, in your inbox

One email a week: the five stories that mattered and what they actually mean. Free.