CNN
—
The Supreme Court did not disclose a long-standing financial relationship with former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, but as an expert who independently verified an investigation into who leaked the draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade. advertised him.
A court inquiry, released last week in support of Chertoff, could not identify those responsible for the unprecedented leak. The decision to silence ties with Chertoff reflects a pattern of uncertainty in the nation’s Supreme Court, whose ruling affects all Americans.
CNN learned from a source familiar with the arrangement the court has personally contracted with the Chertoff Group for security evaluations in recent years. Some cover the judge’s safety broadly, and some relate specifically to her Covid-19 protocols on the court itself.
Estimated payments to Chertoff’s risk assessment firm amounted to at least $1 million for months of negotiations that included a search of the judge’s home. The exact amount paid could not be determined. Supreme Court contracts are not subject to federal publication rules and escape tracking in public databases.
The judge, long hidden in secrecy, refuses to answer questions about potential conflicts of interest or to divulge information about court rules and codes of ethics. Or, release timely information about the judge’s health and public appearance.
The court’s decision to keep his previous arrangement with Chertoff secret meant that Chertoff had used him as a seal of approval, and over the years his professional relationship with Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and other court conservatives. are crossing paths, fueling controversy surrounding the leak investigation itself.
“Why did they go to someone with ties to the court is at least a valid question. Can you be sure he’s objective? That’s part of the reason for the disclosure,” he said. Sean Moulton, senior policy analyst for Project on Government Oversight, told CNN.
Asked about Chertoff’s specific contract and amount estimate, a Supreme Court spokesperson said only that “as a matter of policy, the court does not discuss security measures.” Refused to answer CNN’s questions about money.
A spokeswoman for the Chertoff Group declined to answer questions about previous financial dealings with the court and why Chertoff did not disclose previous relationships. She referred the matter to the Supreme Court. bottom.
According to Moulton, the government’s regular contract disclosures help people see whether money is being spent reasonably, how the price of one consulting contract compares to others, and when bids are solicited. or if the process was skipped because the work was urgent. foundation.
“I think it’s a mistake to treat the judiciary differently when it comes to these disclosures,” Moulton told CNN. “They are custodians of public funds and are accountable for how these funds are used.”
A report on the leak investigation, conducted by Supreme Court Marshal Gail Curley, did not specify how the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization draft opinion was leaked, but it did not specify how confidentiality and computer protocols were compromised. It revealed numerous internal security flaws using.
In a one-page public statement issued with the report, Chartoff said Roberts had asked him to “independently review and assess the completeness of the investigation into the leak of Dobbs’ draft opinion and identify additional useful investigative measures and actions. I asked you to do so,” he wrote. Please improve the handling of confidential documents in the future. ”
The Supreme Court’s own statement on the matter noted that Chertoff concluded that Curley had “conducted a thorough investigation,” and that Chertoff declared that “at this time, no additional useful investigative avenues can be identified.” emphasized the
Chertoff, who had previously reported no financial ties to the courts, already had known personal ties to the judges through his Ivy League education, former judicial clerk, and tenure in two Bush administrations. It was done.
Chertoff and Roberts, who attended Harvard Law School a year before Roberts, served as legal clerk on the New York-based Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and later as a solicitor on the Supreme Court. (Roberts represented conservative Justice William Rehnquist, and Chertoff represented liberal Justice William Brennan.)
In the early 1990s, while Roberts was working for the Justice Department in the first Bush administration, Chertoff was appointed by President George HW Bush to be the U.S. Attorney for New Jersey. That position was previously held by another current judge, Samuel Alito.
Chertoff later went into private practice before joining Alito in 2003 on the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Chertoff was appointed by President George W. Bush, who also served in that administration as Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch. In 2005, Chertoff left the bench as Bush appointed him homeland security secretary.
Chertoff set up a private practice in 2009, and court sources say he was hired about four years ago to overhaul court police security for judges.
During this period, CNN learned that at the time, the court was trying a new approach in which each of the nine judges had the same officer’s permanent security details. (This was before their protections were tightened as a result of abortion leaks and regular protests in courts and judges’ homes.)
Chertoff’s office was then asked to advise the court on its response to Covid-19 and the judge’s safe return to court proceedings.
Both the court and Chertoff responded to CNN’s question about whether the Chertoff Group would be involved in implementing his new recommendations attached to the Jan. 19 report to improve the judge’s safety following the leak. did not do it.
The court cited past reviews by unnamed “security experts” in its appropriations to Congress. A public document filed with Congress calling for an additional $23 million from him this year for building and site management states that he will upgrade his physical security “following a comprehensive review and recommendations by security experts.” of $4.2 million. There were no specific experts or consulting engagements. The court separately sought an additional $2.8 million for “additional security upgrades” related to police kiosks and other security-related physical infrastructure. (The total budget authority the court requested for him in 2023 is about $140 million.)
The judge’s safety is a concern for the court, especially after an increase in protests at the judge’s home and an attempted murder charge against a California man who was arrested near his Kavanaugh, Maryland, home last June. It has become.
A January 19 report on the leak investigation was bitterly divided in a 5-4 vote on whether to overturn a landmark 1973 ruling that first gave women across the country the right to terminate their pregnancies. (A final opinion overturning Roe v. Wade was issued on June 24.)
Last week’s report detailed a number of legal and full-time employees who were interviewed and asked to sign affidavits to hold them accountable for the breach. But court officials initially said nothing about whether the judges were interviewed.On Jan. 20, Curley said he had spoken to each of the nine judges, but signed affidavits. I made it clear that I was not asked to do so.
In reviewing Curley’s report, Chertoff commented on the investigators’ own willingness to be open and cooperative.
“Throughout my review, investigators were transparent, supportive, and able to answer my questions about the process.
