The hunt for whoever leaked the Supreme Court’s 2022 abortion draft has gone to a federal grand jury, according to reports, more than three years after the Court’s own probe of 97 employees came up empty.
Story Highlights
- On Thursday, November 5, reports said the Justice Department had taken its search for the Dobbs leaker to a grand jury.
- Prosecutors have sent grand jury subpoenas for testimony and sought information from people who worked at the Court in 2022, according to reports.
- The probe could give prosecutors access to tightly guarded Court records, possibly including files on the justices’ private talks, reports say.
- No one has been charged. The Justice Department would “neither confirm nor deny” an investigation.
- Court employees had already signed sworn statements denying they leaked the draft, and prosecutors could look at whether anyone lied.
DOJ Takes the Dobbs Leak Hunt to a Grand Jury
Federal prosecutors are using a grand jury to find out who gave a draft of the Dobbs ruling to a news site in May 2022, according to reports citing people familiar with the case. A grand jury is a group of ordinary citizens who meet in secret, hear evidence from prosecutors and decide whether anyone should be charged with a crime. It can order people to testify or turn over records through subpoenas, which are court orders that must be obeyed.
U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro, the top federal prosecutor in Washington, D.C., is overseeing the case, according to reports. She assigned her deputy Carlton Davis and several career prosecutors to it. A spokesman for Pirro’s office declined to comment, and a Supreme Court spokeswoman did not respond to questions about how much the Court has helped, according to reports.
Why the Case Moved Outside the Court
The Court tried to solve the leak on its own and could not. Chief Justice John Roberts ordered the Court’s Marshal, Gail Curley, who runs Court security, to find the source. Her team interviewed 97 staff members and law clerks and checked Court computers, printers and phone records. Its January 2023 report found no sign that an outside hacker was involved. It also could not name the leaker.
That left only the people inside the building who had seen the draft. A grand jury can do what the Marshal could not: force sworn testimony and demand records under penalty of law. Employees had already signed sworn statements denying they leaked the draft, and prosecutors could look at whether anyone lied in that process, according to reports.
What Prosecutors Would Need to Prove
Prosecutors have not said which law they believe was broken. Experts say they could try a federal law against stealing government property, or laws that protect confidential government information, though either would be unusual for a leaked court draft, according to reports. Some of these laws give prosecutors five years to file charges, a window that would close in the spring of 2027.
Not everyone welcomes the probe. Cornell law professor Michael Dorf warned that it could amount to “the executive branch harassing members of the judicial branch.” Others point to what the leak set off. Protesters gathered outside justices’ homes, and in June 2022 an armed man, Nicholas Roske, was arrested near Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s home. Roske was sentenced in October 2025 to more than eight years in prison.
The Road Ahead Under President Trump’s Administration
The White House has pushed for answers. President Trump said in July that “that person should be found,” and the FBI said in May 2025 that it was making the case a priority. With subpoenas going out, the case has moved from talk to action.
The next signs to watch are whether the grand jury hears from more former Court workers and whether prosecutors name a law they believe was broken. Anyone questioned in the case is presumed innocent, and no one will face charges unless the grand jury votes to bring them.
Sources:
rawstory.com, nytimes.com, nationalreview.com, livenowfox.com, lawfaremedia.org