John McCormack has noted some of the punchiest bits of Justice Samuel Alito’s interview with James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal about the Dobbs leak, the security threats to the Court and the justices that it triggered, and the failed investigation to expose the leaker. It tells us something about where things now stand for the leaker.

Recall that the Marshal’s report found that there was not proof of the leaker’s identity satisfying a preponderance of the evidence standard (i.e., more likely than not), and that report seemed to disclaim having identified any specific suspect, but it did imply that the Court’s inquiry probably focused pretty intensively on a few likely suspects. Alito now says, “I personally have a pretty good idea who is responsible, but that’s different from the level of proof that is needed to name somebody.” He is confident what the motive was: “It was a part of an effort to prevent the Dobbs draft . . . from becoming the decision of the court. And that’s how it was used for those six weeks by people on the outside—as part of the campaign to try to intimidate the court.” And he’s understandably bitter at how this made him and other members of the majority “targets of assassination,” sending an armed assassin to Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s house and upending the lives of the other conservative justices: Alito is now “driven around in basically a tank, and I’m not really supposed to go anyplace by myself without the tank and my members of the police force.” The justices’ homes now require 24/7 protection by federal agents at taxpayer expense.

Now, consider: Alito thinks he knows who caused all of this. Maybe it’s one of the liberal justices, and maybe it’s some nonlegal employee of the Court, but let’s suppose that his suspect is the likeliest source: a progressive law clerk. If Alito has one person in mind, it must be because he knows more about the investigation than the public does. It is likely that all ten justices do (ten counting both Stephen Breyer, who was there during the leak, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, who was on the Court replacing Breyer by the time the investigation concluded). It is additionally likely that, if Alito suspects someone in particular, he’s not the only one who may suspect the same person. He’s probably discussed the matter with his colleagues, particularly the other justices in the Dobbs majority, and perhaps with Chief Justice Roberts.

The circle of people who know enough to suspect this particular person may be broader: It could include other clerks on the Court, at least during last term; it could include the Court’s professional staff; it could include the spouses of the seven married justices (who are undoubtedly all very upset at the additional security); it might include close confidants of the justices and the clerks, a group that could easily extend to any number of the most prominent and distinguished members of the Supreme Court bar.

In other words: Somebody out there may be starting a legal career under a particularly toxic cloud that is known to a select circle of people, but might be unknown and unmentionable to that young lawyer’s current and future employers and clients, who do not know that this person is deeply mistrusted by a majority of the Supreme Court — the very people whose respect is such a big part of the resume value of a Supreme Court clerkship. Does the leaker have an ethical duty to disclose that risk to his or her employer and clients? Worse, it is entirely possible that the suspect is the wrong person, and the actual leaker now knows this, but is afraid of coming forward due to the risk of perjury prosecution as well as all of these other professional consequences.

In short: This was not a harmless crime, and the culprit may yet suffer punishment by the mechanisms of the hidden law, but may do so in a way that is not harmless to innocent bystanders.