To paraphrase Mark Twain, Justice Samuel Alito’s retirement has been “much exaggerated.” Yesterday, my phone exploded with calls from reporters about the scoop by NPR’s Nina Totenberg that Alito had retired. As someone who has covered the Court for 30 years and was in the midst of covering yesterday’s opinions for Fox News, it was enough to trigger a panic attack. I had been told that Alito had selected his clerks for the next term and was not retiring. Then NPR issued a retraction that Totenberg was wrong and Alito was still showing signs of judicial life. It turns out that it came down to the perils of pluralization for the press.

NPR issued a retraction stating:

“Earlier today, we erroneously published a story saying that Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito was retiring. Neither Alito nor the court’s public information office has announced his retirement, and we have retracted the story.”

To her credit, Totenberg later went on “All Things Considered” to apologize for what she called a “rookie mistake.”

The explanation was even more surprising than the mistake itself. I had assumed that Totenberg had gotten a mistaken account from a justice or high-ranking court official. Instead, she explained in a letter to Justice Alito that

“I rushed out of the courtroom after the opinion announcements, and when I realized that the usual rush of folks after a few minutes had not happened, I asked somebody was going on inside, to which the answer was, ‘retirement announcements.’ I didn’t hear the ‘s’ on ‘announcements,’ and I assumed, something no reporter should ever do, that you were retiring. It was the worst professional mistake of my more than 50 years in journalism. I could go on, but I don’t know what else to say, except that I am so, so sorry.”

So it came down to the mistaken pluralization from an account of a third party leaving the chamber?

It is particularly bizarre that Totenberg would run with a story without confirming not only the retirement but also the actual justice. There has also been speculation that Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Sonia Sotomayor might retire. The story came across as more wishful thinking than loose reporting.

While it may be what Totenberg considers “the worst professional mistake of my more than 50 years in journalism,” it is not the first such controversy.

I previously wrote about another challenged Totenberg scoop. As is often the case with Totenberg, the conservative was the villain.

After striking down the Biden vaccine mandate for workplaces, Totenberg triggered a frenzy over Gorsuch not wearing a mask at oral arguments:

“Chief Justice John Roberts, understanding that, in some form asked the other justices to mask up. They all did. Except Gorsuch, who, as it happens, sits next to Sotomayor on the bench. His continued refusal since then has also meant that Sotomayor has not attended the justices’ weekly conference in person, joining instead by telephone.”

It did not matter that Totenberg had previously attacked Gorsuch. The media showed the same hair-triggered response in taking the story viral.

Gorsuch did appear in the last argument in the term without a mask. Ironically, if he had simply worn a commonly used cloth mask, there would have been no outcry, even though the masks do not appear to block the virus, and even CNN’s experts were calling them “little more than facial decorations.”

It is also unclear whether Sotomayor even knew whether anyone or everyone would wear masks during the argument. She had previously stated an intention to participate remotely. Given the lack of protection from most masks (including reused or contaminated N95 masks), Sotomayor likely felt the risk was not worth taking. Yet, Totenberg stated as a fact that Gorsuch’s “continued refusal since then has … meant that Sotomayor has not attended the justices’ weekly conference in person, joining instead by telephone.”

Her story led to a torrent of criticism from other liberal outlets. MSNBC’s Nicole Wallace declared Gorsuch guilty of “anti-mask insanity.” Her colleague Joy Reid accused Gorsuch of virtually standing Sotomayor up in front of a COVID firing squad for his personal enjoyment. Rolling Stone ran with the story “Neil Gorsuch Stands Up for His Right to Endanger Sonia Sotomayor’s Health,” and added “the liberal Supreme Court justice is diabetic and didn’t want to sit next to justices who weren’t wearing masks. Her conservative colleague didn’t care.”

Former senator Claire McCaskill tweeted:

So glad I voted no on this jerk. What kind of guy does this? I could tell in my meeting with him that he thought he was better than everyone else, more important, smarter. Ugh. #Gorsuch

The Daily Kos declared

“it is hard to imagine a bigger shit. But we should not be surprised…Most Americans will find his selfishness incredible, but it is typical of his kind. One trait common to every conservative is a sociopathic lack of empathy.”

Elie Mystal, who has written for Above the Law and the Nation, tweeted

Confirmation of what we all already knew. Whatever you think about masks, Gorsuch, who sits next to Sotomayor at work, just decided to be a dick to a colleague.

Then came the denial of all three justices.

Chief Justice John Roberts also issued a statement that it was false, as claimed, that he asked any of his colleagues to wear masks on the bench. Indeed, previously the justices did not wear masks during arguments. Moreover, Gorsuch is routinely shown wearing a mask around the courthouse.

The joint statement of the two justices insists that Totenberg’s account is entirely false:

“Reporting that Justice Sotomayor asked Justice Gorsuch to wear a mask surprised us. It is false. While we may sometimes disagree about the law, we are warm colleagues and friends.”

Yet when NPR’s ombudsman, Kelly McBride, merely suggested that Totenberg clarify the facts of her story, Totenberg attacked her. Totenberg responded to The Daily Beast and declared that McBride “can write any goddamn thing she wants, whether or not I think it’s true.”