Public policy made simple. Dive into our information hub today!

John Roberts (Supreme Court)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
John Roberts
Image of John Roberts

Nonpartisan

Supreme Court of the United States
Tenure

2005 - Present

Years in position

19

Prior offices
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

Education

Bachelor's

Harvard University, 1976

Law

Harvard Law, 1979

Personal
Birthplace
Buffalo, N.Y.


John Glover Roberts, Jr. is the chief justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. He was first nominated to the Supreme Court of the United States by President George W. Bush (R) on July 19, 2005, to fill the vacancy of Sandra Day O'Connor, who retired in 2005. President Bush withdrew his nomination of Roberts to be an associate justice when Chief Justice William Rehnquist passed away in September 2005 and Bush then renominated Roberts to be the 17th Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. The full U.S. Senate confirmed Roberts by a vote of 78-22.[1] At the time of his nomination, he was the youngest person to serve as chief justice in a century.[2]

Roberts began his legal career by clerking for appellate Judge Henry Friendly and Rehnquist. Roberts spent two decades working in Washington, D.C., under the administrations of Ronald Reagan (R) and George H.W. Bush (R) and in private practice at Hogan & Hartson.[3] Before joining the Supreme Court, Roberts served on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit from 2003 to 2005.

As chief justice, Roberts has described his approach as trying to build more unanimity and working to issue fewer 5-4 decisions.[4][5] Although considered a conservative member of the court, Politico noted that Roberts has sometimes sided with the court's liberal justices. Josh Gerstein wrote that "Roberts’ tendency to side with liberals in some cases embraced by many Republican activists seems to grate on many conservative lawyers, including some who helped lead the fight to confirm him."[6]

The Associated Press' Colleen Slevin wrote that "Roberts has spoken out repeatedly about the importance of the judiciary’s independence and to rebut perceptions of the court as a political institution not much different than Congress or the presidency."[7]

Roberts’ notable opinions include the Affordable Care Act cases King v. Burwell and National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius and the plurality opinion in the racial classification in school admissions case Parents Involved v. Seattle.

Professional career

Executive branch service

Following his time as a clerk for William Rehnquist, Roberts entered into a number of executive branch appointments. He served in the administrations of Republican presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.

Reagan administration

Roberts served as special assistant to U.S. Attorney General William French Smith from 1981 to 1982. His work in that position included advising the attorney general, writing speeches, and representing the attorney general in meetings with executive branch and state and local government officials.

From 1982 to 1986, Roberts served as associate counsel to President Ronald Reagan's (R) White House Office of Counsel under Fred F. Fielding. In this position, he reviewed bills submitted to the president by Congress, drafted and reviewed executive orders, and performed general legal reviews of presidential activities.[8][9]

George H.W. Bush administration

Roberts served as principal deputy solicitor general in the United States Department of Justice from 1989 to 1993. As principal deputy solicitor general, Roberts briefed and argued a variety of cases before the Supreme Court of the United States on behalf of the U.S. government.[9]

Private practice

From 1986 to 1989, Roberts practiced law in Washington, D.C. as an associate at Hogan & Hartson LLP. He made partner in 1988 while building a civil litigation practice focused on appellate matters. Roberts left the firm in 1989 to serve as principal deputy solicitor general in President George H.W. Bush's (R) administration. He returned in 1993 to lead the firm's appellate practice group.[10]

Roberts argued his first case before the Supreme Court of the United States in 1989. As a court-appointed attorney, he successfully represented his client against the United States government in United States v. Halper, a double jeopardy case decided by a unanimous court.[11] Roberts would ultimately argue a total of 39 cases before the Supreme Court of the United States, winning 25 of them.

Early life and education

Roberts was born in Buffalo, New York, on January 27, 1955.[12] He was raised as, and continues to be, a practicing Roman Catholic. He attended private schools as a child and graduated from La Lumiere School— at the time an all-boys Roman Catholic boarding school—in LaPorte, Indiana, in 1973.[13][14][15]

Harvard College and law school

Roberts attended Harvard for both his undergraduate and law degrees. He received his undergraduate degree from Harvard College in 1976. He wrote his thesis on British liberalism in the early 20th century and graduated summa cum laude. He received his J.D. from Harvard Law School in 1979. At Harvard Law School, he served as managing editor of the Harvard Law Review and graduated magna cum laude.[16][9]

Approach to the law

Generally considered to be a practitioner of judicial restraint, Roberts most often votes with the conservative wing of the court. As chief justice, Roberts has described his approach as trying to build more unanimity and working to issue fewer 5-4 decisions.[17][18] Oyez, a law project created by Cornell’s Legal Information Institute, Justia, and Chicago-Kent College of Law, said that Roberts is an "avid supporter of the belief that the role of the court is an umpire, meaning that the role is to interpret the rules, not create them."[19] Although considered a conservative member of the court, Politico noted that Roberts has sometimes sided with the court's liberal justices. Josh Gerstein wrote that "Roberts’ tendency to side with liberals in some cases embraced by many Republican activists seems to grate on many conservative lawyers, including some who helped lead the fight to confirm him."[20]

Martin-Quinn score

Roberts' Martin-Quinn score following the 2023-2024 term was 0.51, making him the sixth-most conservative justice on the court at that time. Martin-Quinn scores were developed by political scientists Andrew Martin and Kevin Quinn from the University of Michigan, and measure the justices of the Supreme Court along an ideological continuum. The further from zero on the scale, the more conservative (>0) or liberal (<0) the justice. The chart below details every justice's Martin-Quinn score for the 2023-2024 term. These are preliminary scores provided by Kevin Quinn that may differ slightly from the final version of the scores that Martin and Quinn will make publicly available at a later date.

Video discussion

Roberts spoke at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in April 2017 about his approach to the law, the role of the Supreme Court, and the confirmation process. The video of that event is embedded below.

Judicial career

United States Supreme Court (2005 - present)

Nomination Tracker
Fedbadgesmall.png
Nominee Information
Name: John G. Roberts, Jr.
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Progress
Confirmed 23 days after nomination.
ApprovedANominated: September 6, 2005
ApprovedAABA Rating: Unanimously Well Qualified
Questionnaire:
ApprovedAHearing: September 12-15, 2005
Hearing Transcript: Hearing Transcript
QFRs: (Hover over QFRs to read more)
ApprovedAReported: September 22, 2005 
ApprovedAConfirmed: September 29, 2005
ApprovedAVote: 78-22


Roberts was first nominated to the Supreme Court of the United States by President George W. Bush (R) on July 19, 2005, to fill the vacancy of Sandra Day O'Connor, who retired in 2005. President Bush withdrew his nomination of Roberts to be an associate justice when Chief Justice William Rehnquist passed away on September 3, 2005. President Bush then renominated Roberts, on September 6, 2005, to be the 17th Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. President Bush requested that the U.S. Senate expedite his nomination to fill the vacancy prior to the start of the Supreme Court session beginning in early October.

During his Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Roberts drew comparisons between being a judge and being a baseball umpire, stating, "My job is to call balls and strikes, not pitch or bat."[21]

On September 22nd, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved Roberts' nomination by a vote of 13-5, with Senators Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Joe Biden (D-Del.), and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) casting the dissenting votes. The full U.S. Senate confirmed Roberts on September 29th with a vote of 78-22.

District of Columbia Court of Appeals (2003-2005)

Roberts was first nominated by President George H.W. Bush (R) to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 1992. His nomination was never taken up for a vote, and he returned to private practice after President Bush lost the 1992 presidential election to President Bill Clinton (D).

In May 2001, Roberts received an appointment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by President George W. Bush (R). Senator Patrick Leahy (D), then chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, did not hold a confirmation hearing for Roberts.[22]

President Bush renominated Roberts in January 2003, after Republicans gained a majority in the U.S. Senate. Roberts was unanimously confirmed on May 8, 2003.

During his two years on the bench, Roberts authored 49 opinions, two of which elicited dissents from other judges. Roberts also authored three dissenting opinions. Roberts left the court to join the Supreme Court of the United States.

Supreme Court statistics

Opinions by year

Below is a table of the number of opinions, concurrences, and dissents that Roberts has issued since joining the Supreme Court, according to the data from Cornell University’s Legal Information Institute and from the annual Stat Pack produced by the website SCOTUSBlog. This information is updated annually at the end of each term.[23][24] Information for the 2022 term is from a dataset provided by Dr. Adam Feldman, author of Empirical SCOTUS. Data for the 2022-2023 term does not include concurrences and dissents in part. Information for the 2023 term is from the Empirical SCOTUS 2023 Stat Review.


Opinions written by year, Roberts
2022 - 2023 2023 - 2024
Opinions 7 7
Concurrences 0 1
Dissents 0 1
Totals 7 9




Justice agreement

In the 2023-2024 term, Roberts had the highest agreement rate with Brett Kavanaugh. Roberts had the lowest agreement rate with Ketanji Brown Jackson.[25] In the 2022-2023 term, Roberts had the highest agreement rate with Brett Kavanaugh. He had the lowest agreement rates with Clarence Thomas.[26] This does not include agreements in part.[27]

The table below highlights Roberts' agreement rate with each justice on the court during that term.[28][29]


John Roberts agreement rates by term, 2017 - Present
Justice 2017 - 2018 2018 - 2019 2019 - 2020 2020 - 2021 2021 - 2022 2022 - 2023 2023 - 2024
Anthony Kennedy 90% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Clarence Thomas 79% 76% 72% 75% 79% 75% 80%
Ruth Bader Ginsburg 68% 63% 70% N/A N/A N/A N/A
Stephen Breyer 70% 69% 74% 73% 62% N/A N/A
Samuel Alito 77% 89% 77% 83% 89% 78% 83%
Sonia Sotomayor 66% 65% 69% 66% 54% 76% 71%
Elena Kagan 72% 69% 78% 72% 63% 82% 71%
Neil Gorsuch 83% 68% 85% 81% 73% 76% 76%
Brett Kavanaugh N/A 94% 93% 94% 100% 95% 95%
Amy Coney Barrett N/A N/A N/A 84% 89% 89% 88%
Ketanji Brown Jackson N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 78% 69%

Frequency in majority

In the 2023-2024 term, Roberts was in the majority in 97 percent of decisions. He was in the majority more often than the eight other justices.[25]In the 2022-2023 term, Roberts was in the majority in 95 percent of decisions. He and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who was in the majority in 96 percent of decisions, were in the majority more often than the seven other justices.[26][30][31]

Since the 2011-2012 term, Roberts has been in the majority at least 80 percent of the time each term, and been in the majority more than 90 percent of the time ten times. Across those terms, he has been in the majority for 91 percent of all cases.[31][25]



Noteworthy cases

See also: Noteworthy cases heard by current justices on the U.S. Supreme Court

The noteworthy cases listed in this section include any case where the justice authored a 5-4 majority opinion or an 8-1 dissent. Other cases may be included in this section if they set or overturn an established legal precedent, are a major point of discussion in an election campaign, receive substantial media attention related to the justice's ruling, or based on our editorial judgment that the case is noteworthy. For more on how we decide which cases are noteworthy, click here.


Since he joined the court through the 2022-2023 term, Roberts authored the majority opinion in a 5-4 decision 34 times and authored one dissent in an 8-1 decision. The table below details these cases by year.[32]

John Roberts noteworthy cases
Year 5-4 majority opinion 8-1 dissenting opinion
Total 34 1
2023-2024 1 0
2022-2023 1 0
2021-2022 2 0
2020-2021 2 1
2019-2020 4 0
2018-2019 4 0
2017-2018 2 0
2016-2017 0 0
2015-2016 0 0
2014-2015 2 0
2013-2014 1 0
2012-2013 2 0
2011-2012 1 0
2010-2011 3 0
2009-2010 2 0
2008-2009 2 0
2007-2008 1 0
2006-2007 3 0
2005-2006 1 0

U.S. Supreme Court noteworthy opinions


Native American tribal nations’ health care funding (2024)

See also: Becerra v. San Carlos Apache Tribe

Roberts authored a 5-4 opinion in the case Becerra v. San Carlos Apache Tribe, consolidated with Becerra v. Northern Arapaho Tribe, holding that "[The Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDA)] requires [Indian Health Service (IHS)] to pay the contract support costs that a tribe incurs when it collects and spends program income to further the functions, services, activities, and programs transferred to it from IHS in a self-determination contract."[33] Justice Brett Kavanaugh filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Amy Coney Barrett.

In the court's majority opinion, Chief Justice Roberts wrote:[33]

“ Contract support costs are necessary to prevent a funding gap between tribes and IHS. By definition, these are costs that IHS does not incur when it provides healthcare services funded by congressional appropriations and third-party income. §§5325(a)(2)(A) and (B). But they are costs that tribes must bear when they provide, on their own,healthcare services funded by the Secretarial amount and program income. If IHS does not cover costs to support a tribe’s expenditure of program income, the tribe would have to divert some program income to pay such costs, or it would have to pay them out of its own pocket. Either way, the tribe would face a systemic funding shortfall relative to IHS—a penalty for pursuing self-determination.


The self-determination contracts of the San Carlos Apache Tribe and Northern Arapaho Tribe require them to collect and spend program income to further the functions, services, activities, and programs transferred to them from IHS. When the Tribes do so and incur administrative costs, ISDA requires IHS to pay those support costs.[34]

”
—Chief Justice Roberts


Alabama redistricting map and the Voting Rights Act (2023)

See also: Allen v. Milligan

Roberts authored an opinion in Allen v. Milligan. In a 5-4 decision, the court affirmed the judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, holding that the plaintiffs showed a reasonable likelihood of success concerning their claim that Alabama's redistricting map (HB1) violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the opinion of the court.[35][36]

In the court's majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote:[37]

“ For the past forty years, we have evaluated claims brought under §2 using the three-part framework developed in our decision Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U. S. 30 (1986). Gingles concerned a challenge to North Carolina’s multimember districting scheme, which allegedly diluted the vote of its black citizens. Id., at 34–36. The case presented the first opportunity since the 1982 amendments to address how the new §2 would operate.


Gingles began by describing what §2 guards against. “The essence of a §2 claim,” the Court explained, “is that a certain electoral law, practice, or structure interacts with social and historical conditions to cause an inequality in the opportunities enjoyed by black and white voters.” Id., at 47. That occurs where an “electoral structure operates to minimize or cancel out” minority voters’ “ability to elect their preferred candidates.” Id., at 48. Such a risk is greatest “where minority and majority voters consistently prefer different candidates” and where minority voters are submerged in a majority voting population that “regularly defeat[s]” their choices. Ibid.
To succeed in proving a §2 violation under Gingles, plaintiffs must satisfy three “preconditions.” Id., at 50. First, the “minority group must be sufficiently large and [geographically] compact to constitute a majority in a reasonably configured district.” Wisconsin Legislature v. Wisconsin Elections Comm’n, 595 U. S. ___, ___ (2022) (per curiam) (slip op., at 3) (citing Gingles, 478 U. S., at 46–51). A district will be reasonably configured, our cases explain, if it comports with traditional districting criteria, such as being contiguous and reasonably compact. See Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama, 575 U. S. 254, 272 (2015). “Second, the minority group must be able to show that it is politically cohesive.” Gingles, 478 U. S., at 51. And third, “the minority must be able to demonstrate that the white majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it . . . to defeat the minority’s preferred candidate.” Ibid. Finally, a plaintiff who demonstrates the three preconditions must also show, under the “totality of circumstances,” that the political process is not “equally open” to minority voters. Id., at 45–46; see also id., at 36–38 (identifying several factors relevant to the totality of circumstances inquiry, including “the extent of any history of official discrimination in the state . . . that touched the right of the members of the minority group to register, to vote, or otherwise to participate in the democratic process”).
Each Gingles precondition serves a different purpose. The first, focused on geographical compactness and numerosity, is “needed to establish that the minority has the potential to elect a representative of its own choice in some single-member district.” Growe v. Emison, 507 U. S. 25, 40 (1993). The second, concerning the political cohesiveness of the minority group, shows that a representative of its choice would in fact be elected. See ibid. The third precondition, focused on racially polarized voting, “establish[es] that the challenged districting thwarts a distinctive minority vote” at least plausibly on account of race. Ibid. And finally, the totality of circumstances inquiry recognizes that application of the Gingles factors is “peculiarly dependent upon the facts of each case.” 478 U. S., at 79. Before courts can find a violation of §2, therefore, they must conduct “an intensely local appraisal” of the electoral mechanism at issue, as well as a “searching practical evaluation of the ‘past and present reality.’” Ibid.
Gingles has governed our Voting Rights Act jurisprudence since it was decided 37 years ago. Congress has never disturbed our understanding of §2 as Gingles construed it. And we have applied Gingles in one §2 case after another, to different kinds of electoral systems and to different jurisdictions in States all over the country. See Voinovich v. Quilter, 507 U. S. 146 (1993) (Ohio); Growe, 507 U. S., at 25 (Minnesota); Johnson v. De Grandy, 512 U. S. 997 (1994) (Florida); Holder v. Hall, 512 U. S. 874 (1994) (Georgia); Abrams v. Johnson, 521 U. S. 74 (1997) (Georgia); League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry, 548 U. S. 399, 423 (2006) (LULAC) (Texas); Bartlett v. Strickland, 556 U. S. 1 (2009) (plurality opinion) (North Carolina); Cooper v. Harris, 581 U. S. 285 (2017) (North Carolina); Abbott v. Perez, 585 U. S. ___ (2018) (Texas); Wisconsin Legislature, 595 U. S. ___ (Wisconsin).[34]

”
—Chief Justice John Roberts

No right to abortion under the U.S. Constitution (2022)

See also: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization

Roberts authored an opinion concurring in judgment in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Roberts wrote that he would uphold Mississippi's abortion law but not overturn Roe and Casey. Associate Justice Samuel Alito authored the majority opinion, holding that the U.S. Constitution did not provide a right to abortion. Alito was also joined by Associate Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. Alito wrote:

“ We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled. The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely—the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth

Amendment. That provision has been held to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution, but any such right must be “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.” Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U. S. 702, 721 (1997) (internal quotation marks omitted).

The right to abortion does not fall within this category.[34]

”
—Justice Alito

In his concurring opinion, Roberts wrote:

“ I would take a more measured course. I agree with the Court that the viability line established by Roe and Casey should be discarded under a straightforward stare decisis analysis. That line never made any sense. Our abortion precedents describe the right at issue as a woman’s right to choose to terminate her pregnancy. That right should therefore extend far enough to ensure a reasonable opportunity to choose, but need not extend any further—certainly not all the way to viability. Mississippi’s law allows a woman three months to obtain an abortion, well beyond the point at which it is considered “late” to discover a pregnancy. See A. Ayoola, Late Recognition of Unintended Pregnancies, 32 Pub. Health Nursing 462 (2015) (pregnancy is discoverable and ordinarily discovered by six weeks of gestation). I see no sound basis for questioning the adequacy of that opportunity.


But that is all I would say, out of adherence to a simple yet fundamental principle of judicial restraint: If it is not necessary to decide more to dispose of a case, then it is necessary not to decide more. Perhaps we are not always perfect in following that command, and certainly there are cases that warrant an exception. But this is not one of them. Surely we should adhere closely to principles of judicial restraint here, where the broader path the Court chooses entails repudiating a constitutional right we have not only previously recognized, but also expressly reaffirmed applying the doctrine of stare decisis. The Court’s opinion is thoughtful and thorough, but those virtues cannot compensate for the fact that its dramatic and consequential ruling is unnecessary to decide the case before us.[34]

”
—Chief Justice Roberts

Transportation orders in post-conviction claims (2022)

See also: Shoop v. Twyford

Roberts authored a 5-4 majority opinion in Shoop v. Twyford, holding that a transportation order allowing a prisoner to search for new evidence is not necessary or appropriate in aid of a federal court’s adjudication of a habeas corpus action when the prisoner has not shown that the desired evidence would be admissible in connection with a particular claim for relief.[38]

In the court's majority opinion, Chief Justice Roberts wrote:[38]

“ The All Writs Act authorizes federal courts to “issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” 28 U.S.C. §1651(a). In this case, the District Court ordered the State to transport a prisoner in its custody to a hospital for medical testing. The prisoner argued that the testing could reveal evidence helpful in his effort to obtain habeas corpus relief. The question is whether the District Court’s order is “necessary or appropriate in aid of ” the federal court’s resolution of the prisoner’s habeas case. We hold that it is not, and therefore reverse.[34] ”
—Chief Justice Roberts

Jurisdictional requirements of eminent domain under the Natural Gas Act (2021)

See also: PennEast Pipeline Co. v. New Jersey

Roberts authored a 5-4 majority opinion in PennEast Pipeline Co. v. New Jersey, holding that Section 717f(h) authorizes FERC certificate holders to condemn all necessary rights-of-way, whether owned by private parties or by states. Chief Justice Roberts was joined in the majority by Justices Stephen Breyer, Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor, and Brett Kavanaugh. Justice Neil Gorsuch filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas. Justice Amy Coney Barrett filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Elena Kagan, and Neil Gorsuch.[39]

In the court's majority opinion, Chief Justice Roberts wrote:[39]

“ From humble beginnings in central Indiana, the Nation’s interstate pipeline system has grown to span hundreds of thousands of miles. This development was made possible by the enactment of §717f(h) in 1947. By its terms, §717f(h) authorizes FERC certificate holders to condemn all necessary rights-of-way, whether owned by private parties or States. Such condemnation actions do not offend state sovereignty, because the States consented at the founding to the exercise of the federal eminent domain power, whether by public officials or private delegatees. Because the Third Circuit reached a contrary conclusion, we reverse the judgment below and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.[34] ”
—Chief Justice Roberts

Authority of administrative patent judges in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (2021)

See also: United States v. Arthrex Inc.

Roberts authored a 5-4 majority opinion in United States v. Arthrex Inc., holding that the system granting Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) the power to issue final decisions without effective oversight was unconstitutional. The court ruled 7-2 to fix the constitutional issue by removing the statutory provisions that blocked the director of the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) from unilaterally reviewing APJ decisions. Chief Justice Roberts was joined in the majority by Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. Justice Clarence Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan in parts I and II.[40]

In the court's majority opinion, Chief Justice Roberts wrote:[40]

“ Today, we reaffirm and apply the rule from Edmond that the exercise of executive power by inferior officers must at some level be subject to the direction and supervision of an officer nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The Constitution therefore forbids the enforcement of statutory restrictions on the Director that insulate the decisions of APJs from his direction and supervision. To be clear, the Director need not review every decision of the PTAB. What matters is that the Director have the discretion to review decisions rendered by APJs. In this way, the President remains responsible for the exercise of executive power—and through him, the exercise of executive power remains accountable to the people.[34] ”

Decision to end DACA (2019)

See also: Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California

Roberts authored a 5-4 majority opinion in Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, holding the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) decision to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program did not properly follow the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Chief Justice Roberts was joined in the majority by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor.

“ The dispute before the Court is not whether DHS may rescind DACA. All parties agree that it may. The dispute is instead primarily about the procedure the agency followed in doing so. ... Because DHS was 'not writing on a blank slate,' ... it was required to assess whether there were reliance interests, determine whether they were significant, and weigh any such interests against competing policy concerns. ... Acting Secretary Duke should have considered those matters but did not. That failure was arbitrary and capricious in violation of the APA.[34] ”
—Chief Justice Roberts

Copyright of a state's official annotated code (2019)

See also: Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org Inc.

Roberts authored a 5-4 majority opinion in Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org Inc., holding the Official Code of Georgia Annotated (OCGA) was not eligible for copyright protection. Chief Justice Roberts was joined in the majority by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh.

“ Under what has been dubbed the government edicts doctrine, officials empowered to speak with the force of law cannot be the authors of—and therefore cannot copyright—the works they create in the course of their official duties. ... Copyright does not vest in works that are (1) created by judges and legislators (2) in the course of their judicial and legislative duties.[34] ”
—Chief Justice Roberts

Tax breaks for religiously-affiliated schools (2019)

See also: Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue

Roberts authored a 5-4 majority opinion in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, holding the application of Article X, Section 6 of the Montana Constitution violated the free exercise clause of the U.S. Constitution. Chief Justice Roberts was joined in the majority by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh.

“ Montana’s no-aid provision bars religious schools from public benefits solely because of the religious character of the schools.[34] ”
—Chief Justice Roberts

President's appointment and removal powers (2019)

See also: Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

Roberts authored a 5-4 majority opinion in Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, holding the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), an independent agency that exercised executive powers and had a director protected from at-will termination by the president, was unconstitutional. Chief Justice Roberts was joined in the majority by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh.

“ While we have previously upheld limits on the President’s removal authority in certain contexts, we decline to do so when it comes to principal officers who, acting alone, wield significant executive power.[34] ”
—Chief Justice Roberts

Previous noteworthy opinions


Appeals court opinions

See also

External links


Footnotes

  1. ↑ United States Senate, "Supreme Court Nominations, present-1789," accessed April 13, 2021
  2. ↑ Oyez, "John G. Roberts, Jr.," accessed July 12, 2023
  3. ↑ Oyez, "John G. Roberts, Jr.," accessed February 1, 2019
  4. ↑ The Atlantic, "Roberts's rules," January 1, 2007
  5. ↑ New York Times, "Compromise at the Supreme Court veils its rifts," July 1, 2014
  6. ↑ Politico, "Conservatives blast Roberts as turncoat," June 27, 2019
  7. ↑ AP News, "Chief Justice John Roberts defends legitimacy of court," September 10, 2022
  8. ↑ Time, "Bush picks a replacement for Harriet Miers," January 8, 2007
  9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 9.2 White House Archives, "Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.," accessed July 11, 2014
  10. ↑ Hogan & Hartson, "Former Hogan & Hartson partner John G. Roberts, Jr. confirmed as chief justice of the United States," archived October 9, 2008
  11. ↑ Justia, "United States v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435 (1989)," accessed July 11, 2014
  12. ↑ Wargs.com, "Ancestry of John G. Roberts compiled by William Addams Reitwiesner," accessed July 11, 2014
  13. ↑ La Lumiere "Notable alumni of La Lumiere School," accessed July 11, 2014
  14. ↑ New York Times, "Court nominee's life is rooted in faith and respect for law," July 21, 2005
  15. ↑ As of September 2020, La Lumiere School was a coed school.
    Ballotpedia staff, "Email communication with Brett Balhoff, La Lumiere School science department chair," September 17, 2020
  16. ↑ The Harvard Crimson, "Two alums may be tapped for court," July 8, 2005
  17. ↑ The Atlantic, "Roberts's rules," January 1, 2007
  18. ↑ New York Times, "Compromise at the Supreme Court veils its rifts," July 1, 2014
  19. ↑ Oyez, "John G. Roberts, Jr.," accessed August 12, 2019
  20. ↑ Politico, "Conservatives blast Roberts as turncoat," June 27, 2019
  21. ↑ CNN, "I come with 'no agenda,' Roberts tells hearing," September 13, 2004
  22. ↑ Washington Times, "Pat Leahy, judiciary committee chairman?" October 16, 2006
  23. ↑ SCOTUSBlog, "Final Stat Pack for October Term 2016 and key takeaways," accessed April 16, 2018
  24. ↑ SCOTUSBlog, "Final Stat Pack for October Term 2017 and key takeaways," accessed October 4, 2018
  25. ↑ 25.0 25.1 25.2 Empirical SCOTUS, "2023 Stat Review," July 1, 2024
  26. ↑ 26.0 26.1 Empirical SCOTUS, "Another One Bites the Dust: End of 2022/2023 Supreme Court Term Statistics," November 16, 2023
  27. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "STAT PACK for the Supreme Court’s 2021-22 term," July 2, 2021
  28. ↑ Due to a change in the 2020 stat pack format, the agreement rate uses the rate of agreement in judgment.
  29. ↑ Due to a change in the 2021 stat pack format, the agreement rate uses the rate of agreement in judgment.
  30. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "2020-21 Stat pack: Frequency in the majority," July 2, 2021
  31. ↑ 31.0 31.1 SCOTUSblog, "STAT PACK for the Supreme Court's 2021-22 term," July 1, 2022
  32. ↑ The Supreme Court Database, "Analysis," accessed December 18, 2023
  33. ↑ 33.0 33.1 U.S. Supreme Court, Becerra v. San Carlos Apache Tribe, decided June 6, 2024
  34. ↑ 34.00 34.01 34.02 34.03 34.04 34.05 34.06 34.07 34.08 34.09 34.10 34.11 34.12 34.13 34.14 34.15 34.16 34.17 34.18 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
  35. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Allen, Alabama Secretary of State, et al. V. Milligan et al., "Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama," accessed June 8, 2023
  36. ↑ SCOTUSblog, Supreme Court upholds Section 2 of Voting Rights Act, accessed June 8, 2023
  37. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named opinion
  38. ↑ 38.0 38.1 U.S. Supreme Court, Shoop v. Twyford, decided June 21, 2022
  39. ↑ 39.0 39.1 U.S. Supreme Court, PennEast Pipeline Co. v. New Jersey, decided June 29, 2021
  40. ↑ 40.0 40.1 United States Supreme Court, United States v. Arthrex, Inc., decided June 21, 2021
  41. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Department of Commerce v. New York," June 27, 2019
  42. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Rucho v. Common Cause and Lamone v. Benisek: Opinion of the Court," June 27, 2019
  43. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, et. al.," June 21, 2019
  44. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Lamps Plus, Inc., et al. v. Varela, April 24, 2019
  45. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, King v. Burwell, June 25, 2015
  46. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius," accessed July 11, 2014
  47. ↑ The Atlantic Wire, "Rand Paul wants John Roberts to sign up for Obamacare," October 21, 2013
  48. ↑ Cornell University Law School, "Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1," accessed July 11, 2014
  49. ↑ Open Jurist, "Hedgepeth v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority," accessed July 9, 2014
  50. ↑ Open Jurist, "Rancho Viejo Llc v. A Norton," accessed July 9, 2014

Political offices
Preceded by
- 		Supreme Court of the United States
2005-Present		 Succeeded by
-
Preceded by
- 		United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
2003-2005		 Succeeded by
-


Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=John_Roberts_(Supreme_Court)&oldid=9917312"