Dr. Samuel B. Hoff is a George Washington Distinguished Professor Emeritus and an internship director at Delaware State University. He served as the school’s law studies director from 2005-19.
At the 20-year mark of his service as chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, John Roberts has already held the position longer than all but four of the 17 chief justices in American constitutional history. Given the events, cases and trends that have transpired since 2005, it is appropriate to evaluate his helmsmanship.
Roberts graduated from Harvard Law School and clerked for the justice he would later replace, William Rehnquist. He was successfully confirmed to an appointment on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in 2003. Originally nominated to be an associate justice of the high court to replace Sandra Day O’Connor in 2005, he was renominated as chief justice following Chief Justice Rehnquist’s sudden death that year.
Over the ensuing 20 years, there have been seven replacements on the Supreme Court, with only Clarence Thomas predating Roberts’ ascension to chief. What was once a tribunal with a plurality of moderates has been transformed into a clear conservative majority. Of course, with such a stark reworking of the high court, there have been a number of consequences, from less unanimous rulings to more sharp exchanges between justices in written decisions.
The cases decided by the Supreme Court during Roberts’ chiefship largely mirror the growing conservative bent. In the most extreme case, the court negated a federal abortion right that was in force for a half-century. In other areas, from voting rights to campaign finance limits to union rights, the majority of the court has backtracked. The few exceptions have legalized same-sex marriage nationwide and preserved Affordable Care Act provisions.
Clearly, the court’s recent rulings have upset the balance between the national branches of government. The 2024 decision in Trump v. United States imbues the president with absolute immunity for official acts undertaken under his core authority, with presumptive immunity for other actions. Meanwhile, the court’s majority has weakened congressional oversight of the executive branch by stripping independent regulatory agencies, citing originalist interpretation of the Constitution as justification, even though Congress was predominant at the outset.
The decline in public trust for the Supreme Court has unfortunately transpired on Roberts’ watch. While he began at a challenging time for the court, Roberts helped garner backing for the justices and the process early on. But, lately, trust in the court has hovered in the 40% range, near a record low. Granted, other factors are also to blame for the general decline in support for American institutions, but the damage as it pertains to the judiciary is especially troubling.
Roberts has had to deal with other issues affecting the national judiciary, from threats against jurists to ethical issues involving the justices making money on the side to the perpetual issue of cameras in courts to the increasing reliance on emergency appeals, labeled the “shadow docket.”
But, going forward, the question will be whether the Supreme Court becomes a change agent for law, society and culture or whether it will reflect same. Because we tend to identify eras of the court’s history with its leader, the answer will determine John Roberts’ legacy as its 17th chief justice.
Reader reactions, pro or con, are welcomed at civiltalk@iniusa.org.
