Your feedback ensures we stay focused on the facts that matter to you most—take our survey.

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

Predecessor
Prior offices
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Predecessor: James Buckley

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 nominated by President George W. Bush (R) to fill the seat left vacant by William Rehnquist and sworn in on September 29, 2005.

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 and in private practice at Hogan & Hartson.[1]

Prior to joining the Supreme Court, Roberts served on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit from 2003 to 2005.

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. In that role, he advised the attorney general, wrote speeches, and acted as the attorney general's representative to other officials in the executive branch and state and local governments.

From 1982 to 1986, Roberts served as associate counsel to President Ronald Reagan's White House Office of Counsel under Fred F. Fielding. Roberts' duties in the White House included reviewing bills submitted to the president by Congress, drafting and reviewing executive orders, and generally reviewing the full range of presidential activities for legal issues.[2][3]

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.[3]

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 administration. He returned in 1993 to lead the firm's appellate practice group.[4]

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.[5] Roberts would ultimately argue a total of 39 cases before the Supreme Court of the United States, winning 25 of them.

Roberts was also part of the team of lawyers sent to Florida to advise Gov. Jeb Bush (R) during the 2000 presidential election recount in that state, which ultimately put the governor's brother, George W. Bush, in the White House.[6]

Early life and education

Roberts was born in Buffalo, New York, on January 27, 1955.[7] 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, as class valedictorian in 1973.[8][9][10]

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 after only three years. He wrote his thesis on British liberalism in the early 20th century and graduated summa cum laude. He earned 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.[11]

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 tried to build more unanimity, working to issue fewer 5-4 decisions.[12][13] 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."[14] 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."[15]

Martin-Quinn score

Roberts' Martin-Quinn score following the 2019 term was 0.43, making him the fourth-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 measures 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 2019 term.

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."[16]

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 on a vote of 78-22.

District of Columbia Court of Appeals (2003-2005)

Roberts was first nominated by President George H.W. Bush 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.

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. Senator Patrick Leahy chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee for the next 19 months and refused Roberts a confirmation hearing.[17]

Roberts got his hearing after being renominated in January of 2003, after the Republicans regained control of 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.[18][19]

Opinions written by year, Roberts
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Opinions 1 7 8 8 8 7 8 8 7 7 7 8 6 7 7
Concurrences 0 2 0 5 3 3 0 4 2 2 2 0 1 2 1
Dissents 0 1 3 4 4 2 3 7 3 5 5 2 4 3 1
Totals 1 12 11 17 17 12 11 17 12 14 11 10 11 12 9

Justice agreement

In the 2019 term, Roberts agreed in full, part, or judgment only the most often with Brett Kavanaugh. He disagreed most often with Sonia Sotomayor.[20] In the 2018 term, Roberts agreed in full, part, or judgment only the most often with Brett Kavanaugh. He disagreed most often with Sonia Sotomayor.[21] The table below highlights Roberts' agreement and disagreement rates with each justice on the court during that term.

John Roberts agreement rates, 2017 - Present
2017 term 2018 term 2019 term
Justice Agreement rate Disagreement rate Agreement rate Disagreement rate Agreement rate Disagreement rate
Anthony Kennedy 90% 10% N/A N/A N/A N/A
Clarence Thomas 79% 21% 76% 24% 72% 28%
Ruth Bader Ginsburg 68% 32% 63% 37% 70% 30%
Stephen Breyer 70% 30% 69% 31% 74% 26%
Samuel Alito 77% 23% 89% 11% 77% 23%
Sonia Sotomayor 66% 34% 65% 35% 69% 31%
Elena Kagan 72% 28% 69% 31% 78% 22%
Neil Gorsuch 83% 17% 68% 32% 85% 15%
Brett Kavanaugh N/A N/A 94% 6% 93% 7%

Frequency in majority

In the 2019 term, Roberts was in the majority in 97 percent of decisions. He was in the majority in more than any of the eight justices.[22] In the 2018 term, Roberts was in the majority in 85 percent of decisions. He was in the majority more often than seven other justices and less often than one other justice. Since the 2011 term, Roberts has been in the majority more than 80 percent of the time each term, and been in the majority more than 90 percent of the time six times. Across those eight terms, he has been in the majority for 90 percent of all cases.[23]

Noteworthy cases

Noteworthy cases described below are those in which the justice authored either a 5-4 majority opinion or a 1-8 dissent. Other cases may be included if they do not meet these criteria but otherwise receive significant media attention.

Since he joined the court through the 2019 term, Roberts authored the majority opinion in a 5-4 decision 28 times and had not authored a dissent in an 8-1 decision. The table below details these cases by year.[24]

John Roberts noteworthy cases
Year 5-4 majority opinion 8-1 dissenting opinion
Total 28 0
2019 4 0
2018 4 0
2017 2 0
2016 0 0
2015 0 0
2014 2 0
2013 1 0
2012 2 0
2011 1 0
2010 3 0
2009 2 0
2008 2 0
2007 1 0
2006 3 0
2005 1 0

Supreme court opinions

Census citizenship question (2018)

See also: Department of Commerce v. New York

Roberts authored a 5-4 majority opinion in this case that ruled that the Trump administration's decision to add the citizenship question to the census did not violate the Enumeration Clause or the Census Act, but that Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross' rationale for the decision was inconsistent with the administrative record. Roberts was joined in part by the following justices:[25]

  • The justices ruled unanimously in Parts I and II of the decision, which provided background on Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross' decision to add a citizenship question to the 2020 U.S. Census and affirmed that "at least some" of the respondents in the case had Article III standing.
  • Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh joined in Parts III, IV-B, and IV-C. Part III held that the citizenship question did not violate the Enumeration Clause. Part IV-B held that the evidence before Ross supported his decision to add the citizenship question to the census. Part IV-C held that Ross' decision did not violate the Census Act.
  • Justices Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Brett Kavanaugh joined in Part IV-A, which ruled that Ross' action was subject to judicial review.
  • Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan joined in Part V of the decision, which held that Ross' rationale for adding the citizenship question in order to support enforcement of the Voting Rights Acts was inconsistent with the administrative record.

Roberts wrote:

“ We do not hold that the agency decision here was substantively invalid. But agencies must pursue their goals reasonably. Reasoned decisionmaking under the Administrative Procedure Act calls for an explanation for agency action. What was provided here was more of a distraction.[26] ”

Partisan gerrymandering (2018)

See also: Rucho v. Common Cause and Lamone v. Benisek

Roberts authored a 5-4 majority opinion in a joint ruling for both cases. The court ruled that partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions that fall beyond the jurisdiction of the federal judiciary. Roberts was joined in the majority by Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh. Roberts wrote:[27]

“ Partisan gerrymandering claims rest on an instinct that groups with a certain level of political support should enjoy a commensurate level of political power and influence. Explicitly or implicitly, a districting map is alleged to be unconstitutional because it makes it too difficult for one party to translate statewide support into seats in the legislature. But such a claim is based on a 'norm that does not exist' in our electoral system—'statewide elections for representatives along party lines.'" Roberts also wrote, "[Federal] courts are not equipped to apportion political power as a matter of fairness, nor is there any basis for concluding that they were authorized to do so.[26] ”

Takings Clause (2018)

See also: Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania

Roberts authored a 5-4 majority opinion that overturned the requirement established in Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City that a person claiming unlawful taking of their property by a state or local government must first seek all available options for redress in a state court before petitioning a federal court. It found that the requirement conflicted with the later ruling in San Remo Hotel, L.P. v. City and County of San Francisco that a state court's ruling in such cases precludes any federal judgment, creating a situation where a plaintiff had no opportunity to appeal a taking to the federal government until after it was too late for the federal government to act. Roberts was joined in the majority by Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh. Roberts wrote:[28]

“ We now conclude that the state-litigation requirement imposes an unjustifiable burden on takings plaintiffs, conflicts with the rest of our takings jurisprudence, and must be overruled. A property owner has an actionable Fifth Amendment takings claim when the government takes his property without paying for it. That does not mean that the government must provide compensation in advance of a taking or risk having its action invalidated: So long as the property owner has some way to obtain compensation after the fact, governments need not fear that courts will enjoin their activities. But it does mean that the property owner has suffered a violation of his Fifth Amendment rights when the government takes his property without just compensation, and therefore may bring his claim in federal court under §1983 at that time.[26] ”

Class arbitration agreements (2018)

See also: Lamps Plus Inc. v. Varela

Roberts authored a 5-4 majority opinion that ruled that under "the Federal Arbitration Act, an ambiguous agreement cannot provide the necessary contractual basis for concluding that the parties agreed to submit to class arbitration.". Roberts was joined in the majority by Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh. Roberts wrote:[29]

“ Courts may not infer from an ambiguous agreement that parties have consented to arbitrate on a classwide basis.[26] ”

Affordable Care Act tax credits extend to federally created exchanges (2015)
See also: Supreme Court of the United States (King v. Burwell, 14-114)

Under the Affordable Care Act, state governments were required to establish a marketplace through which residents could purchase health insurance. These marketplaces were called exchanges. If a state failed to create an exchange, the federal government would establish one under the authority of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Under the Affordable Care Act, individuals were required to purchase health insurance or risk paying a tax penalty from their annual income tax returns unless an individual fell within an exemption for low-income individuals. To limit the number of individuals who fell under the exemption, the Affordable Care Act authorized tax credits to offset the cost of coverage, however, the statutory language stipulated that the credits were for those who enrolled via exchanges established by state governments. The Internal Revenue Service, by regulation, extended the tax credits to those who enrolled through a marketplace created by the Department of Health and Human Services. The question brought to the court was whether the Internal Revenue Service regulation was in violation of congressional prerogatives under the Affordable Care Act.

Writing for a six-justice majority, Chief Justice John Roberts held that Congress' intent was for the tax credits to go to individuals who signed up for health insurance through the exchanges regardless of whether the exchanges were established by the federal government or a state government.[30]

Affordable Care Act upheld (2012)
See also: Supreme Court of the United States (National Federation of Independent Business et. al v. Sebelius, Secretary of Heath and Human Services, et. al, 11-393)

In June 2012, Chief Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, better known as the challenge to "Obamacare." Challengers to the law argued that the federal government's power under the Commerce Clause was not valid to make individuals purchase a good or service, in this case, healthcare. Roberts agreed with that interpretation, but surprised many observers by allowing the law to stand on the basis of Congress' authority to levy a tax.[31]

For a thorough explanation of the federal healthcare act and the challenges it faced in court, see: Obamacare overview.

Response

In the criticism of the law that followed the ruling, Republican Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) introduced a constitutional amendment that would mandate that every piece of legislation passed by Congress applies to every U.S. citizen and members of the House and Senate equally. In a statement about the legislation, Paul said:

“ My amendment says basically that everybody including Justice Roberts — who seems to be such a fan of Obamacare — gets it too. See, right now, Justice Roberts is still continuing to have federal employee health insurance subsidized by the taxpayer. And if he likes Obamacare so much, I’m going to give him an amendment that gives Obamacare to Justice Roberts.[32][26] ”

Parents Involved v. Seattle (2007)
See also: Supreme Court of the United States (Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 et al., 551 U.S. 701 (2007))

In June 2007, Chief Justice Roberts authored the plurality opinion in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1. At issue was whether it was constitutionally permissible for a public school district, and particularly those that had not operated segregated schools in the past, to (1) classify students by race and (2) rely upon such racial classifications in making school assignments.

The school districts involved voluntarily adopted student assignment plans that relied upon race to determine which public schools certain children may attend. The Seattle, Washington, school district classified children as white or nonwhite, while the Jefferson County (Louisville, Kentucky) school district classified children as black or “other.” In Seattle, this racial classification was used to allocate slots in oversubscribed high schools. In Jefferson County, it was used to make certain elementary school assignments and to rule on transfer requests. In each case, the school districts relied upon an individual student's race in assigning that student to a particular school, so that the racial balance at the school fell within a predetermined range based on the racial composition of the school district as a whole. Parents of students denied assignment to particular schools under these plans solely because of their race brought suit, contending that allocating children to different public schools on the basis of race violated the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of equal protection.

Majority opinion

In writing for the majority, Chief Justice Roberts made a statement that would be quoted in articles about affirmative action for years:

“ The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.[33][26] ”

Appeals court opinions

Recent news

The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms John Roberts Supreme Court. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.

John Roberts (Supreme Court) - Google News

See also

External links


Footnotes

  1. ↑ Oyez, "John G. Roberts, Jr.," accessed February 1, 2019
  2. ↑ Time, "Bush picks a replacement for Harriet Miers," January 8, 2007
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 White House Archives, "Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.," accessed July 11, 2014
  4. ↑ Hogan & Hartson, "Former Hogan & Hartson partner John G. Roberts, Jr. confirmed as chief justice of the United States," archived October 9, 2008
  5. ↑ Justia, "United States v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435 (1989)," accessed July 11, 2014
  6. ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Confirmation path may run through Florida," July 21, 2005
  7. ↑ Wargs.com, "Ancestry of John G. Roberts compiled by William Addams Reitwiesner," accessed July 11, 2014
  8. ↑ La Lumiere "Notable alumni of La Lumiere School," accessed July 11, 2014
  9. ↑ New York Times, "Court nominee's life is rooted in faith and respect for law," July 21, 2005
  10. ↑ 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
  11. ↑ The Harvard Crimson, "Two alums may be tapped for court," July 8, 2005
  12. ↑ The Atlantic, "Roberts's rules," January 1, 2007
  13. ↑ New York Times, "Compromise at the Supreme Court veils its rifts," July 1, 2014
  14. ↑ Oyez, "John G. Roberts, Jr.," accessed August 12, 2019
  15. ↑ Politico, "Conservatives blast Roberts as turncoat," June 27, 2019
  16. ↑ CNN, "I come with 'no agenda,' Roberts tells hearing," September 13, 2004
  17. ↑ Washington Times, "Pat Leahy, judiciary committee chairman?" October 16, 2006
  18. ↑ SCOTUSBlog, "Final Stat Pack for October Term 2016 and key takeaways," accessed April 16, 2018
  19. ↑ SCOTUSBlog, "Final Stat Pack for October Term 2017 and key takeaways," accessed October 4, 2018
  20. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Justice Agreement," accessed September 21, 2020
  21. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "OT18 Agreement Tables," accessed July 3, 2019
  22. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Frequency in the Majority," accessed September 21, 2020
  23. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "OT18 Frequency in the Majority," accessed July 3, 2019
  24. ↑ The Supreme Court Database, "Analysis," accessed June 11, 2019
  25. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Department of Commerce v. New York," June 27, 2019
  26. ↑ 26.0 26.1 26.2 26.3 26.4 26.5 26.6 26.7 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
  27. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Rucho v. Common Cause and Lamone v. Benisek: Opinion of the Court," June 27, 2019
  28. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, et. al.," June 21, 2019
  29. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Lamps Plus, Inc., et al. v. Varela, April 24, 2019
  30. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, King v. Burwell, June 25, 2015
  31. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius," accessed July 11, 2014
  32. ↑ The Atlantic Wire, "Rand Paul wants John Roberts to sign up for Obamacare," October 21, 2013
  33. ↑ Cornell University Law School, "Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1," accessed July 11, 2014
  34. ↑ Open Jurist, "Hedgepeth v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority," accessed July 9, 2014
  35. ↑ Open Jurist, "Rancho Viejo Llc v. A Norton," accessed July 9, 2014
Political offices
Preceded by:
William Rehnquist 		Supreme Court
2005–present
Seat #1 		Succeeded by:
NA
Preceded by:
James L. Buckley 		DC Circuit Court of Appeals
2003–2005 		Succeeded by:
NA



Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=John_Roberts_(Supreme_Court)&oldid=8143078"