The Texas local governments had argued that Michael Chertoff, Napolitano’s predecessor, improperly waived dozens of federal laws that could have blocked or slowed construction of the fence.

This is the second time the Supreme Court has refused to get involved in a legal challenge to the Homeland Security secretary’s authority to speed construction of the fencing. This time, SCOTUSblog reports, “the Justices examined the new case at eight separate private meetings, then still came to the conclusion that it would not rule on it.”

The high court offered no explanation for declining to review the case, which is typical.

Congress authorized (pdf) the fence in an effort to slow illegal immigration, and authorized Chertoff to waive the federal laws in 2005.

As Josh Micah Marshall at Talking Points Memo reported Saturday, Rep John Conyers (D-Mich), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee wrote an angry letter to Michael Chertoff, secretary of the Dept. of Homeland Security, saying the disclosure, by at least one “federal law enforcement official,” according to The AP, was “very disturbing” and warrants an investigation.

In fact, the disclosure wasn’t just disturbing –- it was either illegal, or it was approved directly by the U.S. attorney general. And, it endangered Onyango and any of her family that continue to live in Kenya.

According to the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, 8 CFR 208.6, it is illegal to disclose that a noncitizen has applied for political asylum, without her explicit consent “or at the discretion of the attorney general.”

The Supreme Court, in United States v. Ray, explained the reason: because the applicant or her family could be subject to retaliation in their home country.

As an immigration authority fact sheet, cited by the court, explains: “Public disclosure of asylum-related information may subject the claimant to retaliatory measures by government authorities or non-state actors in the event that the claimant is repatriated, or endanger the security of the claimant’s family members who may still be residing in the country of origin.”

According to Amnesty International, the last year in Kenya has seen a crisis of deadly political violence and grave human rights violations.

In other words, this leak wasn’t just a typical ugly attack against the Democratic presidential nominee — it may have been an unusually dangerous one.