Biskupic no longer has access to inside information, so she is obliged to craft reports based on the Justice’s visible nonverbal cues instead.
Not long ago, Justice Alito sat down with Kyle Peterson of the Wall Street Journal for a lengthy discussion about his latest book. (The transcript is available here.)
There is much to commend in the exchange, yet I want to zero in on Justice Alito’s reaction to claims raised by Joan Biskupic of CNN.
Kyle inquires:
Well, I’m not certain how closely you follow court coverage, but you won’t be surprised to hear that one recurring theme is that you come across as a pensive figure. Here’s a passage from a CNN book by Joan Biskupic: you carry a heavy weight of grievance as if you’re always wronged and perpetually misunderstood.
Biskupic has echoed similar sentiments in the past. In December 2025, she published a column with the headline “Samuel Alito keeps getting his way. So why does he seem so unhappy?” and offered no evidence beyond observing the Justice in the courtroom. Her claim stated:
Alito’s irritability is regularly on display in the courtroom as well. . . .
In the courtroom, even minor moments can visibly irritate Alito. He frequently grimaces and rolls his eyes. . . .
Other justices chuckled; they seemed accustomed to his unguarded irritability.
At the time, I noted how hollow and unsubstantiated this commentary appeared:
Media coverage of the Court’s conservative members is not balanced. It isn’t sufficient to critique their written opinions; pundits feel compelled to speculate about their feelings. A current example is a Biskupic headline titled “Samuel Alito keeps getting his way. So why does he seem so unhappy?” Does Biskupic have any proof that Alito is unhappy? Did she actually speak with the Justice or his clerks? No—Biskupic seems to have lost access to such information and instead bases conclusions on facial expressions on the bench.
Now, Justice Alito has responded:
I find that portrayal unfair and part of a broader trend that reduces justices to caricatures for those who disagree with them. It’s not something I’ve seen applied to some of my colleagues who deliver sharp dissents and make forceful remarks from the bench, yet they’re not singled out in the same way. People see me only during oral arguments, and that’s basically all. For me, oral argument is serious work aimed at guiding sound decisions. I challenge the lawyers, I argue my cases, I welcome challenges because I believe that by engaging, I might persuade a justice who might otherwise lean against me. But I don’t treat oral argument like a moot court, I don’t perform for an audience, I don’t seek laughs or display intelligence. It’s a straightforward, businesslike procedure, and perhaps that’s what they’re referring to.
Good for Alito. Watch this hour-long interview, and others. You won’t see a brooding, grumpy elder statesman. Alito comes across as charming, humorous, and engaging. He simply doesn’t waste time engaging with elites who harbor hostility toward him.
Biskupic will never critique the behavior of Justice Ginsburg on the bench. Heaven forbid someone describe Justice Sotomayor as “angry” or Justice Jackson as “confused.” Only conservative justices receive this kind of treatment.
The reality is that Joan Biskupic stopped obtaining useful information about the Court long ago. Other Supreme Court reporters focus on the questions and answers raised during oral arguments, a genuinely informative practice. But Joan seems determined to convey the impression that she still has valuable things to say, so she reports on body language. I’ve observed her in the Court; she fixes her gaze on the bench and takes meticulous notes. It’s probably best to disregard her work altogether.
On a related note, Justice Alito commented to NPR about Nina Totenberg’s erroneous report that he would be retiring.
In the privacy of his chambers, how did Alito react to the incorrect story that NPR quickly retracted?
“I was amused and puzzled,” Alito told USA TODAY in written responses. “I wondered what triggered the erroneous report. And once the mistake was corrected, I wondered how many people were crestfallen.”
Who benefited from the correction? I suspect many on the left breathed a sigh of relief when NPR retracted the piece, given that the 76-year-old would probably remain on the bench. It’s worth recalling that Totenberg helped block Doug Ginsburg’s nomination, nearly blocked Clarence Thomas’s, and fell short in attempting to derail Neil Gorsuch. Their objective has consistently been to prevent fresh conservative justices from joining the Court.
Speaking of which, Jodi Kantor has produced relatively little over the past year. She circulated some old memos from a decade ago, which seems like a lucky break that a clerical file survived so long. Her foray to the Chief Justice’s summer residence was not well received. Longtime readers may recall that I initially urged the Chief Justice to resign in 2020 in response to the flood of leaks—though not tied to any particular decision. It appears Roberts has tightened controls. Perhaps the NDAs are effective? Maybe the liberal justices understand that leaks can put colleagues at risk? (Though Alito hinted there was no urgency in the two months after the Dobbs opinion leaked.) Whatever happened, the strategy appears to be functioning. I’m inclined to retract my call for the Chief to step down.
