There’s an update to Thursday’s release of a statement by the U.S. Supreme Court Marshal’s office. As my colleague at sister site Townhall.com, Spencer Brown wrote, the investigation report “determined that no further investigation was warranted in the leak of the Dobbs draft opinion,” adding that despite “conduct[ing] multiple follow-up interviews of certain employees[,]….the team has to date been unable to identify a person responsible by a preponderance of the evidence.”

The Supreme Court of the United States issued a statement on Thursday concerning its investigation into the unprecedented leak of a draft opinion in the Dobbs case last year that set off weeks of protests and illegal harassment of justices at their homes.
…

As Townhall reported in the wake of the stunning leak, Chief Justice John Roberts tasked the Marshal of the Supreme Court and her staff with investigating the leak and discerning who and how the draft opinion ended up published by Politico.

“After months of diligent analysis of forensic evidence and interviews of almost 100 employees, the Marshal’s team determined that no further investigation was warranted,” the Supreme Court’s statement continued. “In following up on all available leads, however, the Marshal’s team performed additional forensic analysis and conducted multiple follow-up interviews of certain employees. But the team has to date been unable to identify a person responsible by a preponderance of the evidence,” SCOTUS explained.

The Washington Examiner reports that the Marshal has now released a clarification on the findings and details on the investigative process Friday afternoon:

Supreme Court Marshal Gail A. Curley, tasked to investigate the draft opinion leak signaling the overturning of Roe v. Wade, released a statement Friday saying the justices were interviewed as part of the investigation but were not implicated in the leak.

…

Throughout the course of the investigation, Curley spoke with each of the justices on multiple occasions and determined neither the justices nor their spouses were responsible for leaking the opinion and were not asked to sign sworn affidavits.

“The Justices actively cooperated in this iterative process, asking questions and answering mine. I followed up on all credible leads, none of which implicated the Justices or their spouses. On this basis, I did not believe that it was necessary to ask the Justices to sign sworn affidavits,” Curley wrote in a one-paragraph statement Friday.

The host of Fox News’ “Fox News Sunday” and SCOTUS watcher Shannon Bream alerted Twitters followers to the news:

BREAKING from #SCOTUS Marshal:

During the course of the investigation, I spoke with each of the Justices, several on multiple occasions. The Justices actively cooperated in this iterative process, asking questions and answering mine. (cont.)

— Shannon Bream (@ShannonBream) January 20, 2023

More BREAKING from #SCOTUS Marshal:
I followed up on all credible leads, none of which implicated the Justices or their spouses. On this basis, I did not believe that it was necessary to ask the Justices to sign sworn affidavits. (end)

— Shannon Bream (@ShannonBream) January 20, 2023

As this is a breaking story, RedState will provide further updates when they become available.