Twenty years ago, John Roberts became Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court. His legacy is written in the court’s most important decisions, which have increasingly and radically remade American democracy. From the moment of his appointment he has worked to play the role of the savior of the institution, vainly promising to uphold democracy’s most fundamental principles. Critics say his actions embolden authoritarianism. Their position is that these undertakings subvert protections for minority voters and render the Voting Rights Act less effective.
One of Roberts’ most controversial decisions appeared in 2013 as the majority opinion in Shelby County v. Holder. This ruling dismantled some of the most important regulations of the Voting Rights Act. That Act was meant to curtail discriminatory, racial practices at the voting booth. Specifically, Roberts announced that jurisdictions with historically low levels of discrimination did not require federal approval before changing their voting laws and practices. This created an opening for states to pass discriminatory regulations with little federal oversight. As a result, many observers believe he has led the way in eviscerating a landmark piece of civil rights legislation.
Critics of Roberts have been plenty Bill Burgess, via flickr. Some have been even bolder, labelling him the worst chief justice since Roger Taney, who wrote the famous Dred Scott decision in 1857. Under Roberts’ stewardship, the Supreme Court has been accused of losing its traditional reputation for non-partisanship. Rather, the agency has promoted policies that align itself with an extreme right wing political agenda. Usually, this court is where former President Donald Trump’s many legal challenges go to die. In fact, the court ruled in favor of Trump’s administration in 20 of those 23 emergency docket cases. All of these cases dealt with executive actions.
The effect of Roberts’ rulings extends past the case at hand. No one goes to jail or gets a ticket under this profoundly inaccurate balance of government power and citizen rights. Through a series of rulings, he has entrusted major powers to Trump, especially when it comes to congressional authority on spending. The Supreme Court’s emergency orders often bail out executive overreach. This shields a would-be authoritarian president from accountability or the risk of impeachment.
Roberts’s track record proves that he’ll actively support Trump’s dangerous agenda. Second, less obvious damage is the political landscape he’s helped create, where partisan gerrymandering makes a sham of our congressional elections. In doing so, he’s emboldened state legislatures to rubber stamp extreme gerrymanders. Now, politicians get to pick their voters instead of voters getting to pick them. Such practice subverts the democratic purpose of fair representation and has caused immense disenfranchisement among minority communities.
Additionally, Roberts’ part in facilitating the disastrous Citizens United decision is far too obvious to ignore. That historic decision cleared the way for corporations to spend virtually any sum on elections. The consequence is that extremely wealthy individuals and corporations have much greater power to affect political outcomes. Critics contend that this decision has been disastrous for equality in political representation. They think it allows deep pockets to dictate electoral success rather than focusing on the priorities of average citizens.
Roberts has often justified his rulings by asserting that the desire among state lawmakers to adopt discriminatory voting rules has largely dissipated. This viewpoint has been decried as naive and even dangerous, overlooking the continuing threat of voter suppression and racial discrimination. Sinclair, meanwhile, is a warning that minority voters continue to experience hardships at the polls. This dramatic reversal calls Roberts’ professed commitment to defending democracy principles into serious question.
Since then, legal academics and political activists alike have ramped up their criticism of Roberts. They contend that under his stewardship, Supreme Court decisions have eroded the very pillars of American democracy. They contend that his judicial philosophy prioritizes institutional stability over individual rights, leading to a court that increasingly favors those in power at the expense of marginalized groups.
As Roberts’s tenure continues, onlookers are still very much split on his legacy. Many hope he will be remembered as a tireless champion of institutional integrity. Yet still, others view him as someone who actively turned a blind eye and perpetuated systemic injustice. Whatever you think of it, his imprint on the Supreme Court speaks for itself. It will continue to reverberate for years into the future.