Chief Justice John Roberts, in ordering an investigation into an "egregious breach of trust" in the leak of a Supreme Court draft opinion on abortion, tasked a relatively unknown court official to carry out what could be one of the most high-profile investigations in decades. Despite the Biden administration's curtailing the government's ability to seize records from reporters, the court's Marshal operates outside of that chain of command, opening the possibility for an investigation without traditional guardrails to protect journalists' sources. "It's important to remember that this is nearly unprecedented," said Associated Press Reporter Mike Balsamo. "The Supreme Court as an institution, relies on this level of secrecy, on the level of trust within the court, both with justices, clerks and judicial staff, to ensure that something like this doesn't happen," Balsamo added. Whether it's a crime to leak Supreme Court documents to the press is a matter of legal dispute, but many experts say bringing a criminal case would be extremely difficult. Some lawmakers, particularly Republicans in the Senate, have called for an extensive investigation and prosecution of the person who leaked the document. Generally, the Justice Department pursues leak investigations when classified information is unlawfully released to the public, but that isn't the case here. And while there may be an argument that the release of the draft could amount to the theft of government property, the Justice Department's guidelines suggest a prosecution would be unlikely. Federal law prohibits the theft or receiving of stolen government information. But Justice Department guidelines say it is "inappropriate to bring a prosecution" under that law if the person had legitimate access to the information or documents and then used it "for the purpose of disseminating it to the public." In most cases, investigators need to spell out exactly why they believe a crime was committed in order to obtain the records from the companies who would hold telephone or email records. The investigation is somewhat unprecedented, and the Supreme Court hasn't searched for anyone who leaked information on this scale in the digital age. The Biden administration has significantly curtailed the use of subpoenas and warrants to seize the records of journalists in leak investigations. But the Marshal of the Supreme Court doesn't report to the Executive Branch of the government, so those restrictions wouldn't apply in this investigation. In July, Attorney General Merrick Garland formally prohibited prosecutors from seizing journalists' records as part of leak investigations after an outcry over revelations that the Justice Department -- in the Trump administration -- had obtained records belonging to journalists at The Washington Post, CNN and The New York Times as part of investigations into who had disclosed government secrets related to the Russia investigation and other national security matters. Garland's policy -- which includes limited exceptions when prosecutors could obtain the records -- reversed years of Justice Department policy and aimed to resolve an issue that long vexed prosecutors trying to weigh the media's First Amendment rights against the government's desire to protect sensitive and classified information. "So those traditional guardrails that we're talking about that are in place in the executive branch with the Justice Department and the attorney general likely don't apply here," Balsamo said. "So it remains to be seen whether or not the Marshal or the chief justice could or would issue subpoenas to tech companies or to the journalists themselves." The Marshal of the Supreme Court has issued a subpoena before, though the one publicly known instance came in 1915 after a dispute after a Civil War soldier took Martha Washington's will, which was later sold to a wealthy New York banker. The state of Virginia later brought the case to the Supreme Court and the subpoena was issued in an effort to collect the will. The court's Marshal, Colonel Gail A. Curley, came to the court from the U.S. Army and has been on the job for less than a year. As Marshal, she wears several different hats. Her most important role is as the court's chief security officer, overseeing a staff of approximately 260 employees including the police force that provides security for the justices and the Supreme Court building. But she is also the building's facilities administrator. And when the court hears arguments it's her job to bang a gavel and announce the justices' entrance into the courtroom with a traditional cry that includes phrase "Oyez! Oyez! Oyez!" which means "hear ye." Curley began her job of Marshal in the summer of 2021 following the retirement of the court's longtime Marshal Pamela Talkin. The court said then that while working for the Army, part of Curley's duties included providing legal advice and support on national security law to senior Army leadership. Her military career included time in Germany and Afghanistan.