John Roberts was born in Buffalo, New York. He was raised in a privileged Catholic family. When he was just ten, his family moved to the mostly-white enclave of north-west Indiana. This strict upbringing would later instill a powerful Catholic conscience in him. It instilled the non-negotiable work ethic, grit and determination that would further inform this young man’s later judicial philosophy.
In his teen years, Roberts went through a culture shock that formed his conservative views. He recalls in stark detail being among these radical leftist students. They were the ones passionately protesting against the Vietnam War, and that experience totally shaped him. Talk about a culture shock—from our Indiana small-town boy into the throngs of liberal students protesting the Vietnam War. That experience hardened his conservative beliefs, he noted in 2006.
Roberts began his legal career in 1981 when he accepted a position in Ken Starr’s office. He advanced through the ranks fairly quickly and eventually became the chief of staff to the U.S. Attorney General. His stint in the White House counsel’s office deepened his ties to the GOP establishment. He fostered a private, intellectual friendship with J. Michael Luttig, then a star in the conservative judicial firmament.
As Roberts navigated his career, he often criticized fellow government officials whom he believed obstructed the Reagan administration’s agenda. It’s that doggedness that made his monomaniacal stance all the more valuable to the conservative movement. This show of loyalty would come back to reward his nomination to the Supreme Court many years later.
In 2005, then-President George W. Bush nominated Roberts to his first Supreme Court seat. During his confirmation hearings as a Supreme Court Justice, he sold himself as an impartial arbiter dedicated to applying the rule of law. Instead of providing such an independent role, Roberts has used his office since becoming Chief Justice to further a right-wing agenda.
Since taking on this critical role, Roberts has released a string of inflammatory emergency declarations. These orders have actually enabled the Trump administration to roll back key environmental protections. Further, on June 23 and July 3, 2020, allowed the deportation of individuals seeking asylum to third countries. This recent decision received very strong rebuke from most of the legal world, particularly environmental lawyers and activists.
Progressive observers were hailing Roberts’ court for defending due process. Today, people across the judicial circuit are starting to doubt the fairness of the court system he manages. The legal community has expressed disbelief at how far Roberts has strayed from the impartiality he once claimed to embody.
“Umpires don’t make the rules, they apply them … Nobody ever went to a ball game to see the umpire.” – John Roberts
In recent years, dissenting opinions from Justice Sonia Sotomayor have echoed concerns regarding Roberts’ actions and those of his conservative colleagues on the court. She has released progressively apocalyptic critiques of their actions, foreboding with each pang that we are eroding the very bases of justice and fairness.
Legal scholar Bob Bauer focused instead on the fact that there is still no definitive answer to the most controversial aspects of Roberts’ decisions. He stated, “There is yet no final resolution of these issues.” Such sentiments betray a deepening concern regarding the enfeeblement of independent judicial processes and the encroaching authoritarianism on American democracy.
So, critics say Roberts, in many ways, has let the Trump administration run amok. One legal analyst wrote, “He is rolling over and letting the Trump administration off the hook. Once the orders of a district court are flouted, the rule of law is already in peril. It only gets worse when the Supreme Court ignores the violations altogether. This critique points to a broader narrative that Roberts has retreated from his original promise to protect justice without fear or favor.
Says legal analyst Lisa Graves, media coverage surrounding Roberts has had a tendency to go very easy on him. She noted that Supreme Court reporting has been very kind to Roberts. This breathless coverage only serves to further the misguided belief that what goes on in his court is the new normal, when it undoubtedly is not. This troubling observation speaks to the issue of media culpability and how negative coverage by the media can poison public perception of our judiciary.
J. Michael Luttig, reflecting on his long-time friend’s tenure on the Supreme Court, asserted that Roberts is fully aware of his actions and their implications. “Far from being just some hapless activist, John Roberts knows exactly what he is doing,” Luttig wrote. And he knows full well the message he is sending to America.”
John Roberts is already 70 years old. For over 17 years, he has used these same judicial opinions to help mold American law outside of the courtroom, informing and impacting national policy. Yet his legacy today is the subject of furious contention, both inside and outside of Texas. Supporters hail his commitment to conservative principles, while critics contend he has sold out constitutional conservatism.
“I felt he was speaking directly to me.” – John Roberts