U.S. Supreme Court
in the East Room of the
White House as President Bush and Roberts's wife Jane look on, September 29, 2005. Roberts took the
constitutional oath of office, administered by Associate Justice
John Paul Stevens at the
White House, on September 29, 2005. On October 3, he took the judicial oath provided for by the
Judiciary Act of 1789 at the
United States Supreme Court building. Justice
Antonin Scalia said that Roberts "pretty much run[s] the show the same way" as Rehnquist, albeit "let[ting] people go on a little longer at conference ... but [he'll] get over that." Analysts such as
Jeffrey Toobin have portrayed Roberts as a consistent advocate for conservative principles.
Garrett Epps called Roberts's prose "crystalline, vivid, and often humorous." Seventh Circuit judge
Diane Sykes, surveying Roberts's first term on the Court, concluded that his jurisprudence "appears to be strongly rooted in the discipline of traditional legal method, evincing a fidelity to text, structure, history, and the constitutional hierarchy. He exhibits the restraint that flows from the careful application of established decisional rules and the practice of reasoning from the case law. He appears to place great stock in the process-oriented tools and doctrinal rules that guard against the aggregation of judicial power and keep judicial discretion in check: jurisdictional limits, structural federalism,
textualism, and the procedural rules that govern the scope of judicial review." Roberts has been said to operate under an approach of
judicial minimalism in his decisions, having said, "[i]f it is not necessary to decide more to a case, then in my view it is necessary not to decide more to a case." His decision-making and leadership seems to demonstrate an intention to preserve the Court's power and legitimacy while maintaining judicial independence. In November 2018, the
Associated Press approached Roberts for comment after President
Donald Trump called a
jurist who ruled against his asylum policy an "Obama judge." Roberts responded: "We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them." His remarks were widely interpreted as a rebuke of Trump's comment. As Chief Justice, Roberts presided over the
first impeachment trial of Donald Trump, which began on January 16 and ended on February 5, 2020. Roberts did not preside over Trump's
second impeachment trial, believing that the Constitution requires only that the chief justice preside in the trial of a sitting president, not of a former president. Although Roberts's judicial philosophy is considered conservative, he is seen as more moderate than his predecessor, William Rehnquist, particularly when Rehnquist's vote in
Bush v. Gore is compared to Roberts's vote in
National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius: his decision to uphold the
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) caused the press to contrast his Court with the
Rehnquist Court. Roberts's judicial philosophy is also seen as more moderate and conciliatory than those of
Antonin Scalia or
Clarence Thomas. but in recent years, his voting pattern has resembled that of
Brett Kavanaugh, who is generally seen as more moderate than Alito. After the confirmation of
Amy Coney Barrett, several commentators wrote that Roberts was no longer the leading justice. As the five other conservative justices could outvote the rest, he supposedly could no longer preside over a moderately conservative course while respecting precedent. This view was espoused again after
the 2022 Dobbs decision, which overturned
Roe v. Wade and
Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
Presidential power On June 26, 2018, Roberts wrote the majority opinion in
Trump v. Hawaii, upholding the
Trump administration's travel ban against seven nations, five of which had a
Muslim majority. In his opinion, Roberts concluded that 8 U. S. C. §1182(f) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act gives the president broad authority to suspend the entry of non-citizens into the country and that
Presidential Proclamation 9645 did not exceed the limitations of said act. Additionally, Roberts wrote that the proclamation and its travel ban did not violate the
Free Exercise Clause, as Trump's statements in support of the ban could be justified on the basis of national security. On July 9, 2020, Roberts wrote the majority opinion in
Trump v. Vance, regarding presidential immunity from criminal
subpoenas relating to the president's personal information. In doing so, he rejected arguments relating to the investiture of
absolute immunity in either the
Supremacy Clause or
Article II of the Constitution or of presidential entitlement to a higher standard of issuance of a subpoena. Roberts emphasized this point, writing, "In our judicial system, 'the public has a right to every man's evidence'. Since the earliest days of the Republic, 'every man' has included the President of the United States." On July 9, 2020, Roberts wrote the majority opinion in
Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP, regarding the authority of
congressional subpoenas relating to certain personal information relating to the president. In his opinion, Roberts recognized the role of
executive privilege in presidential decision-making but contended that executive privilege did not preclude blanket immunity from records requests, as protection caused by executive privilege "should not be transplanted root and branch to cases involving nonprivileged, private information, which by definition does not implicate sensitive Executive Branch deliberations." On July 1, 2024, Roberts wrote the majority opinion in
Trump v. United States, writing that a president has absolute immunity for acts committed as president within their constitutional purview, presumptive immunity for official acts, and no immunity for unofficial acts. In his opinion, Roberts notes the importance of balancing fair and effective enforcement of criminal laws, alongside the effects criminal charges for a president's official acts may have in hampering a president's decision-making while in office. Presumptive immunity for such official acts is therefore necessary "to ensure that the President can undertake his constitutionally designated functions effectively, free from undue pressure or distortions", but such a presumption can be overcome provided an assertion of criminality that "pose[s] no dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the
Executive Branch." In determining whether a potentially criminal action is official, neither a violation of law nor a president's motives in acting on said violation may be used in determining it as such. In addition, in charging a president for crimes relating to unofficial acts, evidence involving official acts may not be used, as such usage would threaten "to eviscerate the immunity [...] recognized. It would permit a prosecutor to do indirectly what he cannot do directly—invite the jury to examine acts for which a President is immune from prosecution to nonetheless prove his liability on any charge."
Campaign finance Roberts wrote the opinion in the 2007 decision
FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., which held that provisions of the
Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 that limited political advertising were unconstitutional as applied to WRTL's issue ads preceding the election. Roberts and Justice Alito declined to revisit the Court's 2003 decision in
McConnell v. FEC at that time. In 2010, Roberts joined the opinion of the Court in
Citizens United v. FEC, which struck down provisions of
BCRA that restricted unions, corporations, and profitable organizations from independent political spending and prohibited the broadcasting of political media funded by them within 60 days of general elections or 30 days of primary elections. Roberts wrote his own concurring opinion "to address the important principles of
judicial restraint and
stare decisis implicated in this case". Roberts wrote the plurality opinion in the 2014 landmark
campaign finance case
McCutcheon v. FEC, which held that "aggregate limits" on the combined amount a donor may give to various federal candidates or party committees violate the
First Amendment. In 2015, Roberts joined the liberal justices in
Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar, holding that the
First Amendment does not prohibit states from barring judges and judicial candidates from personally soliciting funds for their election campaigns. For the majority, Roberts wrote that such a rule is narrowly tailored to serve the compelling interest of keeping the judiciary impartial. In 2021, the Supreme Court decided
Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, which held that California's requirement that nonprofit organizations disclose the identity of their donors to the state's
Attorney General as a precondition of soliciting donations in the state violates the
First Amendment. For the majority, Roberts wrote, "California casts a dragnet for sensitive donor information from tens of thousands of charities each year, even though that information will become relevant in only a small number of cases involving filed complaints." It therefore does not serve a narrowly tailored government interest and thus is invalid.
Fourth Amendment Roberts wrote his first dissent in
Georgia v. Randolph (2006). The majority's decision prohibited police from searching a home if both occupants are present, one objects, and the other consents. Roberts criticized the decision as inconsistent with prior
case law and for partly basing its reasoning on its perception of social custom. He said the social expectation test was flawed because the Fourth Amendment protects a legitimate expectation of privacy, not social expectations. In
Utah v. Strieff (2016), Roberts joined the five-justice majority in ruling that a person with an outstanding
warrant may be arrested and searched and that any evidence discovered in that search is admissible in court; the majority held that this remains true even when police act unlawfully by stopping a person without
reasonable suspicion, before learning of the existence of the outstanding warrant. In
Carpenter v. United States (2018), a landmark decision involving privacy of cellular phone data, Roberts wrote the majority opinion in a 5–4 ruling that searches of cellular phone data generally require a warrant.
Abortion In
Gonzales v. Carhart (2007), Roberts voted with the majority to uphold the
Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. Kennedy, writing for a five-justice majority, distinguished
Stenberg v. Carhart, and concluded that the Court's previous decision in
Planned Parenthood v. Casey did not prevent Congress from banning the procedure. The decision left the door open for future
as-applied challenges, and did not address the broader question of whether Congress had the authority to pass the law. Thomas filed a concurring opinion contending that
Roe v. Wade and
Casey should be reversed; Roberts did not join that opinion. In 2018, Roberts and Kavanaugh joined four more liberal justices in declining to hear a case brought by Louisiana and Kansas to deny
Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood, thereby letting stand lower court rulings in Planned Parenthood's favor. Roberts also joined with liberal justices in 5–4 decisions temporarily blocking a Louisiana
abortion restriction (2019) and later striking down that law (
June Medical Services, LLC v. Russo (2020)). The law at issue in
June was similar to one the court struck down in ''
Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt (2016), which Roberts had voted to uphold; in his June
opinion, Roberts wrote that while he believed Whole Woman's Health
was wrongly decided he was joining the majority in June
out of respect for stare decisis''. In September 2021, the Supreme Court declined an emergency petition to temporarily block enforcement of the
Texas Heartbeat Act, which bans abortion after six weeks of pregnancy except to save the mother's life. Roberts, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan were in the minority. In 2022, Roberts declined to join the majority opinion in ''
Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade''. He wrote a concurring opinion supporting only the decision to uphold the Mississippi abortion statute, stating that the right to an abortion should "extend far enough to ensure a reasonable opportunity to choose, but need not extend any further." Roberts also declined to join the dissenting opinion by Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan.
Capital punishment On November 4, 2016, Roberts was the deciding vote in a 5–3 decision to stay an execution. On February 7, 2019, he was part of the majority in a 5–4 decision rejecting a Muslim inmate's request to delay execution in order to have an imam present with him during the execution. Also in February 2019, Roberts sided with Kavanaugh and the court's four liberal justices in a 6–3 decision to block the execution of a man with an "intellectual disability" in Texas.
Affirmative action Roberts opposes the use of race in assigning students to particular schools, including for the purpose of maintaining integrated schools. He sees such plans as discrimination in violation of the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause and
Brown v. Board of Education. In
Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, the Court considered two voluntarily adopted school district plans that relied on race to determine which schools certain children may attend. The Court had held in
Brown that "racial discrimination in public education is unconstitutional," and later, that "racial classifications, imposed by whatever federal, state, or local governmental actor, ... are constitutional only if they are narrowly tailored measures that further compelling governmental interests," and that this "[n]arrow tailoring ... require[s] serious, good faith consideration of workable race-neutral alternatives." Roberts cited these cases in writing for the
Parents Involved majority, concluding that the school districts had "failed to show that they considered methods other than explicit racial classifications to achieve their stated goals." In a section of the opinion joined by four other justices, Roberts added that "[t]he way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." On June 29, 2023, Roberts wrote the majority opinion in
Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which held that race-based affirmative action in both public and private universities violates the Equal Protection Clause.
Free speech Roberts wrote the majority opinion in the 2007 student free speech case
Morse v. Frederick, ruling that a student in a public school-sponsored activity does not have the right to advocate
drug use on the basis that the right to free speech does not invariably prevent the exercise of school discipline. On April 20, 2010, in
United States v. Stevens, the Court struck down an
animal cruelty law. Writing for an 8–1 majority, Roberts found that a federal statute criminalizing the commercial production, sale, or possession of depictions of cruelty to animals was an unconstitutional abridgment of the First Amendment right to freedom of speech. The Court held that the statute was substantially overbroad; for example, it could allow prosecutions for selling photos of out-of-season hunting. On March 2, 2011, Roberts wrote the majority opinion in
Snyder v. Phelps, holding that speech as a matter of public concern, even if considered offensive or outrageous, cannot be the basis of liability for a
tort of emotional stress. In doing so, he wrote that comments Phelps made constituted "matters of public import" as they related to societal issues and that Snyder was not determined to be a "
captive audience" as determined by the captive audience doctrine. In his conclusion, Roberts wrote, "On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker. As a nation, we have chosen a different course—to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate."
Health care reform On June 28, 2012, Roberts wrote the majority opinion in
National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, which upheld a key component of the
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act by a 5–4 vote. The Court found that although the Act's "individual mandate" component could not be upheld under the
Commerce Clause, the mandate could be construed as a tax and was therefore valid under Congress's authority to "lay and collect taxes." At the same time, the Court overturned a portion of the law related to the expansion of
Medicaid; Roberts wrote that "Congress is not free ... to penalize states that choose not to participate in that new program by taking away their existing Medicaid funding." and that he largely wrote both the majority and minority opinions. This extremely unusual circumstance has also been used to explain why the minority opinion was unsigned, itself a rare phenomenon at the Supreme Court. Roberts dissented in
United States v. Windsor, in which a 5–4 majority ruled that key parts of the
Defense of Marriage Act were unconstitutional. The court found that the federal government must recognize same-sex marriages that certain states have approved. Roberts dissented in
Obergefell v. Hodges, in which Kennedy wrote for the majority, again 5–4, that same-sex couples had a right to marry. In
Pavan v. Smith, the Supreme Court "summarily overruled" the Arkansas Supreme Court's decision that the state does not have to list same-sex spouses on birth certificates; Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissented, but Roberts joined the majority. In the cases of
Bostock v. Clayton County, Altitude Express, Inc. v. Zarda, and
R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2020), heard together, Roberts ruled with the 6–3 majority that businesses cannot discriminate against LGBT people in matters of employment. In October 2020, Roberts joined the justices in an "apparently unanimous" decision to reject an appeal from
Kim Davis, who refused to provide marriage licenses to same-sex couples. In
Fulton v. City of Philadelphia (2021), Roberts joined a unanimous decision in favor of a Catholic adoption agency that the City of Philadelphia had denied a contract for its policy not to adopt to same-sex couples; he was also part of the majority that declined to reconsider or overturn
Employment Division v. Smith, "an important precedent limiting First Amendment protections for religious practices." Also in 2021, he was one of the six justices who declined to hear an appeal by a Washington State florist who refused service to a same-sex couple based on her religious beliefs against same-sex marriage; because four votes are required to hear a case, the lower court judgments against the florist remain in place. In November 2021, Roberts voted with the majority in a 6–3 decision to reject an appeal from
Mercy San Juan Medical Center, a hospital affiliated with the Roman Catholic Church, which had sought to deny a
hysterectomy to a transgender patient on religious grounds. Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissented; the vote to reject the appeal left in place a lower court ruling in the patient's favor.
Voting Rights Act As chief justice, Roberts has been in the majority in decisions that struck down voting rights protections provided by the
Voting Rights Act. In
Shelby County v. Holder (2013), he voted with the majority to strike down requirements that states and localities with a history of racially motivated voter suppression obtain federal preclearance before making any changes to voting laws. Research shows that preclearance led to increases in minority congressional representation and minority turnout. Five years after the ruling, nearly 1,000 U.S. polling places had closed, many of them in predominantly African-American counties. There were also cuts to early voting, purges of voter rolls, and impositions of strict voter ID laws. A 2020 study found that jurisdictions that had previously been covered by preclearance substantially increased their voter registration purges after
Shelby. In 2023, Roberts and Kavanaugh joined the liberal justices in
Allen v. Milligan, a 5–4 decision holding that
Alabama's congressional redistricting plan violated Section 2 of the VRA. Writing for the majority, Roberts ruled that Alabama must draw an additional majority-minority district. Writing for himself and the three liberal justices, Roberts also wrote that "[t]he contention that mapmakers must be entirely 'blind' to race has no footing in our §2 case law." == Awards and honors ==