John G. Roberts: United States Supreme Court

In the two centuries of the United States Supreme Court, few Chief Justices have navigated as complex a political and legal landscape as John G. Roberts Jr. Since taking his seat at the center of the bench in 2005, Roberts has steered the nation's highest court through a transformative era. His tenure has been marked by landmark decisions touching on every aspect of American life, from healthcare and voting rights to the powers of the presidency and the administrative state.

Roberts is often described as an institutionalist, a jurist deeply concerned with the Court’s reputation, independence, and legitimacy in the eyes of the public. He has famously compared the role of a judge to that of a baseball umpire, whose job is to "call balls and strikes" rather than pitch or bat. However, his record reveals a leader who is not merely a passive observer but an active architect of legal doctrine. Under his leadership, the Court has shifted significantly to the right, dismantling long-standing precedents on campaign finance and affirmative action while curbing the regulatory power of federal agencies.

As the 17th Chief Justice of the United States, Roberts occupies a unique space in history. He serves as the presiding officer of a branch of government often caught in the crossfire of partisan warfare. His ability to balance his conservative judicial philosophy with a desire to preserve the Court as a non-partisan institution has defined his legacy. This article explores the life, career, and profound impact of John G. Roberts, the man at the helm of the American judiciary.

Early Life and Education

John Glovers Roberts Jr. was born on January 27, 1955, in Buffalo, New York. When he was in the fourth grade, his family moved to Long Beach, Indiana, a small town on the shores of Lake Michigan. His father worked as an executive at a steel plant, providing a comfortable, stable upbringing for Roberts and his three sisters.

His academic prowess was evident early on. He attended La Lumiere School, a rigorous Catholic boarding school in La Porte, Indiana. There, he excelled not only in the classroom but also on the wrestling team and as captain of the football team. He graduated first in his class, a distinction that foreshadowed his future successes.

Roberts continued his education at Harvard University. He was an ambitious and disciplined student, reportedly finishing his undergraduate studies in just three years with a Bachelor of Arts in history, graduating summa cum laude in 1976. He immediately enrolled in Harvard Law School, where his intellect continued to shine. He served as the managing editor of the Harvard Law Review, a prestigious position reserved for the top students in the country. In 1979, he graduated magna cum laude with his Juris Doctor, cementing his reputation as a brilliant legal mind.

Early Legal Career and Rise in Washington

Following law school, Roberts embarked on a legal career that placed him on a fast track to the upper echelons of Washington power. He first clerked for Judge Henry Friendly of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Friendly was known as one of the most astute judges of his era, and Roberts frequently cites him as a major influence on his writing style and analytical approach.

After his year with Friendly, Roberts secured a clerkship at the U.S. Supreme Court with then-Associate Justice William Rehnquist during the 1980 term. This experience forged a bond between the young lawyer and the future Chief Justice whom he would eventually replace.

With his clerkships completed, Roberts entered the executive branch as a special assistant to U.S. Attorney General William French Smith in the Reagan administration. He later served as Associate Counsel to the President, advising the White House on a variety of legal issues. These roles allowed him to help shape the conservative legal movement from the inside, advocating for policies that favored judicial restraint and executive power.

In 1986, Roberts entered private practice at the prominent Washington, D.C., law firm Hogan & Hartson. He became one of the nation’s premier appellate lawyers, arguing 39 cases before the Supreme Court. His advocacy was praised for its clarity, precision, and conversational tone, traits that he would later bring to his own written opinions. He briefly returned to government service under President George H.W. Bush as Principal Deputy Solicitor General before going back to private practice.

Path to the Supreme Court

Roberts’ path to the judiciary was not without obstacles. In 1992, President George H.W. Bush nominated him to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. However, with the presidential election looming, the Senate did not act on his nomination, and it expired.

He had to wait over a decade for another opportunity. In 2001, President George W. Bush nominated him for a seat on the D.C. Circuit. After a lengthy delay caused by partisan battles over judicial nominees, he was confirmed by voice vote in 2003. Although his tenure on the appellate court was relatively short—less than two years—he established himself as a careful, thoughtful jurist.

In the summer of 2005, Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor announced her retirement. President Bush nominated Roberts to fill her seat. However, before his confirmation hearings began, Chief Justice William Rehnquist passed away. President Bush quickly withdrew Roberts’ nomination for Associate Justice and renominated him for the position of Chief Justice.

During his confirmation hearings, Roberts charmed the Senate Judiciary Committee. He famously described his judicial philosophy using the umpire analogy, promising to interpret the law without personal bias. He was confirmed by the Senate on September 29, 2005, by a vote of 78-22, becoming the youngest Chief Justice in two centuries.

Jurisprudence: The "Roberts Court"

The "Roberts Court" era has been defined by a gradual but decisive shift toward conservative legal principles. While Roberts initially sought to guide the Court toward narrow, unanimous decisions to build consensus, deep ideological divides often made this impossible. Over time, particularly as the Court’s composition changed, Roberts found himself leading a confident conservative majority.

Healthcare and the Affordable Care Act

One of the most defining moments of Roberts' tenure came in 2012 with the case of National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius. The case challenged the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), specifically the individual mandate requiring Americans to purchase health insurance.

In a move that surprised many conservative allies, Roberts joined the Court’s liberal wing to uphold the mandate. He wrote the majority opinion, reasoning that while the mandate was not a valid exercise of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause, it could be upheld as a valid exercise of Congress's taxing power. This decision saved the ACA and demonstrated Roberts’ willingness to prioritize judicial restraint and deference to the legislature over ideological purity. He saved the law again in the 2015 case King v. Burwell, interpreting statutory language to allow subsidies on federal exchanges.

Race and Voting Rights

Roberts has held a consistent view that the Constitution requires a "colorblind" approach. This philosophy was most clearly articulated in a 2007 school integration case where he famously wrote, "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."

This perspective led to the landmark 2013 decision in Shelby County v. Holder. Writing for the majority, Roberts struck down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that required states with a history of discrimination to get federal approval before changing election laws. He argued that the country had changed significantly since 1965 and that the coverage formula was outdated. Critics argued this opened the floodgates for restrictive voting laws, while supporters saw it as a restoration of state sovereignty.

In 2023, Roberts authored the majority opinion in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, effectively ending affirmative action in college admissions. He ruled that race-based admissions programs violated the Equal Protection Clause, stating that a student must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual, not on the basis of race.

The Administrative State

A major theme of the Roberts Court has been skepticism toward the power of federal administrative agencies. Roberts has consistently supported the "unitary executive" theory, which posits that the President must have control over the executive branch.

This trend culminated in 2024 with the decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. In this ruling, Roberts wrote the opinion overturning the Chevron deference doctrine. For forty years, Chevron had required courts to defer to federal agencies’ reasonable interpretations of ambiguous laws. By discarding it, Roberts significantly shifted power from the executive branch to the judiciary, fundamentally altering how regulations on the environment, labor, and consumer protection are reviewed.

Presidential Power and Immunity

The conflict between presidential authority and legal accountability came to a head in the 2024 case Trump v. United States. The case centered on whether a former president could be prosecuted for actions taken while in office.

Writing for a 6-3 majority, Roberts delivered a historic opinion granting presidents substantial protection. He ruled that presidents have "absolute immunity" from prosecution for actions within their core constitutional powers and "presumptive immunity" for all other official acts. He argued that the threat of future prosecution could undermine the "bold and unhesitating" action required of the presidency. The decision was viewed by many legal scholars as a significant expansion of executive power, shielding presidents from criminal liability for a wide range of conduct.

Social Issues and Religion

On social issues, Roberts has often walked a fine line, though his record leans conservative.

Abortion

Roberts has consistently voted to uphold restrictions on abortion. However, in the 2022 case Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade, Roberts did not join the majority in fully overruling Roe. In his concurring opinion, he argued for a more moderate approach: he would have upheld the Mississippi law banning abortion after 15 weeks without entirely scrapping the constitutional right to abortion. His attempt to find a middle ground failed to persuade his fellow conservative justices, leaving him as the lone voice for a narrower ruling.

LGBTQ+ Rights

In the 2015 case Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, Roberts wrote a vigorous dissent. He argued that the Constitution did not grant judges the power to redefine marriage, a matter he believed should be left to the democratic process.

Ten years later, in the 2025 case United States v. Skrmetti, Roberts authored the majority opinion upholding a Tennessee law that banned gender-affirming care for minors. He reasoned that the law did not discriminate based on sex but rather regulated medical procedures, and thus did not violate the Equal Protection Clause. This decision marked a significant retreat from the expansion of LGBTQ+ rights seen in previous decades.

Religious Liberty

Roberts has been a staunch defender of the free exercise of religion. In Carson v. Makin (2022), he wrote the opinion striking down a Maine program that excluded religious schools from a state tuition assistance program. He argued that the state could not disqualify schools solely because they were religious, reinforcing a doctrine that government benefits must be available to religious and secular institutions alike.

Role as Chief Administrator

Beyond deciding cases, the Chief Justice acts as the CEO of the federal judiciary. Roberts presides over the Judicial Conference of the United States, manages the Supreme Court building, and selects judges to serve on special tribunals like the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

One of his most visible administrative roles was presiding over the first impeachment trial of President Donald Trump in 2020. Fulfilling his constitutional duty, Roberts sought to maintain a low profile, enforcing Senate rules without inserting himself into the political fray. He notably declined to preside over the second impeachment trial in 2021, as Trump had already left office, interpreting the Constitution’s requirement to apply only to sitting presidents.

Roberts also issues an annual Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary. In his 2024 report, he focused heavily on the physical safety of judges and the threat of disinformation. He warned against "illegitimate activity" such as violence and intimidation, urging other branches of government to support judicial independence. This report came amid rising public scrutiny regarding ethics on the Supreme Court. Following reports of undisclosed gifts to justices, Roberts led the Court to adopt a formal Code of Conduct in 2023, though critics noted it lacked an enforcement mechanism.

Final Summary

John G. Roberts stands as a pivotal figure in American history, bridging the gap between the conservative legal movement of the late 20th century and the transformed judiciary of the 21st. His intellect and mastery of legal procedure are universally acknowledged, even by his ideological opponents.

As Chief Justice, he has achieved many of the conservative movement's long-held goals: overturning Roe v. Wade, ending affirmative action, expanding gun rights, and curbing the administrative state. Yet, he remains distinct from his most conservative colleagues in his occasional willingness to compromise for the sake of the institution. Decisions like saving the Affordable Care Act demonstrate a leader who is acutely aware of the Court’s fragile position in a polarized democracy.

The "Roberts Court" is no longer a collection of nine individual judges but an entity defined by its Chief’s vision of the law—one that favors limited government, a colorblind Constitution, and a robust executive. Whether one views his jurisprudence as a necessary correction or a radical departure, there is no denying that John Roberts has fundamentally reshaped the laws that govern the United States. His legacy will be debated for generations, defined by the tension between his role as a conservative jurist and his duty as the guardian of the Court’s legitimacy.

References

Ballotpedia. (n.d.). John Roberts.  https://ballotpedia.org/John_Roberts

Biskupic, J. (2019). The Chief: The Life and Turbulent Times of Chief Justice John Roberts. Basic Books.

Howe, A. (2024, July 1). Supreme Court rules Trump has broad immunity from prosecution. SCOTUSblog. https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/07/supreme-court-rules-trump-has-broad-immunity-from-prosecution/

Liptak, A. (2025, June 26). Supreme Court Upholds Bans on Gender-Affirming Care for Minors. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com

Oyez. (n.d.). John G. Roberts, Jr..  https://www.oyez.org/justices/john_g_roberts_jr

Supreme Court of the United States. (2024). 2024 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary. https://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/year-end/2024year-endreport.pdf

Supreme Court of the United States. (2024, June 28). Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf

Thank You for Using the Political Directory at Political Jar