Michael Huber 
A version of this story appeared in CNN’s What Matters newsletter. To get it in your inbox, sign up for free here.
CNN
—
The US Supreme Court holds immense power over Americans’ lives but is incredibly tight-lipped about how it reaches decisions.
Polling suggests most Americans view the justices as influenced by ideology rather than providing a fair and impartial check on the other branches of government. Calls for a binding code of ethics have been rejected by the justices. President Joe Biden has joined calls for reforming the court, recently proposing term limits for the justices who currently enjoy lifetime appointments, among other changes.
CNN’s Joan Biskupic has covered the court for decades and written multiple books about the judiciary, including “Nine Black Robes: Inside the Supreme Court’s Drive to the Right and its Historic Consequences.”
With the justices on a break between terms, she has published a three-story series about what happened behind the scenes in consequential cases about presidential immunity, abortion rights and freedom of speech:
I talked to Biskupic by email about the series and got her assessment of some other issues, including when the next court vacancy might occur.
Why these 3?
WOLF: You’ve published stories about Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts. Why did you decide to write about those three this year?
BISKUPIC: I’m always interested in the chief and how he uses his power. So I tend to start any project knowing I want to learn more about him.
During my reporting, I picked up new information about the private moves of Justices Barrett and Alito, and they naturally became an important focus.
How to cover the Supreme Court
WOLF: How do you approach reporting these behind-the-scenes stories?
BISKUPIC: I begin with a list of long sources in the SCOTUS orbit who might have helpful insights. I begin making calls, and more calls. I meet people for coffee or lunch.
As I learn about the deliberations in particular cases, I tend to return to a shorter list of sources. The place is so secretive that it takes some time to fit the pieces together, like a puzzle.
A swing vote?
WOLF: The Barrett-focused story is about how she came to side with the court’s liberal justices in an abortion rights-related case in Idaho, an example of the court’s women forming a bloc. I wonder if you view Barrett as the court’s swing vote.
BISKUPIC: Justice Barrett is just four years into her tenure, so I’m very open to how she will emerge and the crucial role she may play. But she definitely was a decisive vote in the major cases I explored, from abortion to social media to even the Trump immunity controversy. What she wrote stood out.
How does Roberts view Trumpism?
WOLF: The Roberts story is focused on how he abandoned his normal institutionalist approach to grant presidents broad new immunity and argued the decision is about much more than Donald Trump. There was secretly recorded audio of him recently arguing the current political upheaval is not unprecedented in US history. Do you think he views Trumpism as a fever that will break?
BISKUPIC: I think he tries to look beyond Trump as much as he can. But since 2016, Trump’s presence has been hovering over cases in one way or another.
Do justices worry about how the court is perceived?
WOLF: There are many examples of the court’s rightward shift: its chipping away at the government’s administrative power, its reinterpretation of gun rights, its reassessment of gay rights and its decision to take away abortion rights. Are the conservative justices conscious of the perception that the court is veering so far to the right, or do they view each case in a vacuum? Do they care about the perception that the Supreme Court is out of step with the country?
BISKUPIC: Most justices care about the court’s stature in the public eye, generally. But it’s unlikely that the majority believes the court is out of step, as you say. They’re the ones who delivered these controversial rulings.
How do they view reform efforts?
WOLF: Biden has endorsed imposing term limits on justices and an enforceable ethics code. How do you think that proposal is going over at the Supreme Court?
BISKUPIC: The justices have seen the term-limits proposals raised over the decades, and they have never gotten much traction. I suspect they think the idea will fade, or at least they hope it will fade.
Are any retirements coming?
WOLF: If Trump wins, do you expect any justices would retire? If Kamala Harris wins, it is possible no justices would retire?
BISKUPIC: If Trump wins, the leading candidates for retirement would be Justices Clarence Thomas (age 76) and Alito (age 74). If Harris wins, it would be Justice Sonia Sotomayor (age 70). They are the three oldest, but as I always say, 70 is young in court years.
Are they friendly with each other?
WOLF: You write about how Alito appears almost isolated on the court and was notably absent from some decision days this year. Is the court a frosty place at the moment? I remember the stories about Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Antonin Scalia maintaining a friendship despite their disagreements. Are there glimmers of that type of relationship among justices today?
BISKUPIC: No friendship on the current court comes close to matching that of Justices Ginsburg and Scalia. But most are friendly enough with each other. (They’re appointed for life and have to get along, at least superficially.)
Sometimes I think the more relevant question is how much they respect each other’s views. Toward the end of the session, they were showing more disdain, or at least not listening as much to each other.
