I jest, of course.
Who couldn’t see this coming—years ago? A decade ago?
Long before the leak of Justice Alito’s draft opinion reversing Roe v. Wade, Supreme Court justices often used personal email accounts instead of secure servers designed to protect sensitive information. Security lapses by the justices apparently were routine, making the embarrassing and public-trust-wounding leak all but inevitable while also rendering an effective investigation difficult as well.
Supreme Court employees used printers that didn’t produce logs. They were able to print sensitive documents off-site without tracking. So-called “burn bags” containing materials that needed to be shredded were left open and unattended in hallways. Employees could remove documents, including draft opinions, from the SCOTUS buildingCNN says, “The problem with the justices’ use of emails persisted in part because some justices were slow to adopt to the technology.” Ya THINK? My father was a brilliant man, but teaching him about anything related to computers was like teaching my dog Spuds to type. Court employees were nervous about confronting the justices to make them adopt responsible and basic technology security, one source told the network. The staff was nervous about doing their jobs, then. Great. The justices were “not masters of information security protocol,” a former court employee added. Then they were violating professional ethics.
Technological competence is now essential to all aspects of the practice of law, including being a Supreme Court Justice. This has been true for a long time, twenty years or more. The Supreme Court has to be a role model for judges and lawyers alike. Not taking security seriously, or not keeping up with technological developments sufficiently to know how serious this responsibility is, is a damning indictment of the Court and Chief Justice Roberts in particular. Generational deficiencies may be the reason, but it’s not an excuse.
The justices should be required to undergo training in technology related to the law every six months, and more frequently if there are major developments. The current negligence of the Court, clearly mixed in with arrogance and ignorance, makes them all Ethics Dunces.
Ethics Alarms 
Jack wrote:
The justices should be required to undergo training in technology related to the law every six months, and more frequently if there are major developments. The current negligence of the Court, clearly mixed in with arrogance and ignorance, makes them all Ethics Dunces.
Agreed, but don’t hold your breath. People like this would rather French-kiss a live electrical socket than sit through training like that, especially with their towering seniority in their chosen profession.
At least they could hire competent, carefully vetted staff to help them, which apparently, they haven’t done either.
Being reasonably close to most of their ages, I can’t excuse this laxity. It is not acceptable.
I love the way CNN uses the report as a pretext the say the court has delegitimized itself with recent decisions. Nice work, CNN.
By that standard, I think Sec. Clinton delegitimized herself as well…and President Biden…and possibly VP Pence…and…
Having said that, Glenn’s comment is well made. I get that older people sometimes aren’t as tech-savvy. In that case, the court should bring in the very best people to help them with that weakness. But doing nothing and trusting that leaks just won’t happen is (as we have already seen) fraught with peril.
I am an “older person.” From my experience, anyone who pays attention to any media outlet, or has a financial planner, or prepares an estate plan with a competent lawyer, or watches movies, or…or…or…should know the fundamental elements of treating their cyber usage responsibly and reasonably securely. I do not accept that these are older people, average age 62 (I am much older) who are not comfortable with computers. I am convinced this has absolutely nothing to do with being tech savvy; rather, it is unacceptable laxity, practiced complacency, and over-reliance on the trustworthiness of others. Most people, average age 62 or older, know better.