Roberts Court

The Roberts Court (April 2017 – Present)
Front row (left to right): Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Anthony Kennedy, John Roberts (Chief Justice), Clarence Thomas, and Stephen Breyer. Back row (left to right): Elena Kagan, Samuel A. Alito, Sonia Sotomayor, and Neil Gorsuch

The Roberts Court is the time since 2005 during which the Supreme Court of the United States has been led by Chief Justice John G. Roberts. It is generally considered more conservative than the preceding Rehnquist Court, as a result of the retirement of moderate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor and the subsequent confirmation of the more conservative Justice Samuel Alito in her place.

Membership

Roberts was originally nominated by President George W. Bush to replace Associate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who had decided to retire from the Court, effective with the confirmation of her successor. However, before the Senate could act upon Roberts’ nomination to be an Associate Justice, Chief Justice William Rehnquist died, and President Bush nominated Roberts for the Chief Justice vacancy. Roberts’ nomination as Chief Justice was confirmed by the Senate in 2005. Roberts took the Constitutional oath of office, administered by senior Associate Justice John Paul Stevens at the White House, on September 29, 2005, almost immediately after his confirmation. On October 3, Roberts took the judicial oath provided for by the Judiciary Act of 1789, prior to the first oral arguments of the 2005 term. The Roberts Court commenced with Roberts as Chief Justice and eight holdovers from the Rehnquist Court: Stevens, O’Connor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer.

President Bush nominated Samuel Alito (after the withdrawal of Bush’s first nominee, White House Counsel Harriet Miers) to replace O’Connor, and he was confirmed in January 2006. In 2009, President Barack Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor to replace Souter, and in 2010 Obama nominated Elena Kagan to replace Stevens. Justice Scalia died in February 2016, and in March 2016 Obama nominated Merrick Garland. Garland’s nomination was never considered by the Senate, and in January 2017, President Donald Trump appointed Neil Gorsuch to replace Scalia. Democrats in the Senate filibustered the Gorsuch nomination, but after the Republicans exercised the “nuclear option“, Gorsuch was confirmed in April 2017.

Chief Justice Associate Justice

Rulings of the Court

In its first ten years, the Roberts court has issued major rulings on gun control, affirmative action, campaign finance regulation, abortion, capital punishment, gay rights, and criminal sentencing. Major decisions of the Roberts Court include:

• Massachusetts v. EPA(2007): In a 5-4 decision in which the majority opinion was delivered by Justice Stevens, the Supreme Court upheld the Environmental Protection Agency‘s right to regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act.
• District of Columbia v. Heller(2008): In a 5-4 decision in which the majority opinion was delivered by Justice Scalia, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment applies to federal enclaves, and that the amendment protects the right of individuals to possess a firearm, regardless of service in a militia. McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), in a 5-4 decision written by Justice Alito, extended this protection to the states.
• Ashcroft v. Iqbal(2009): In a 5-4 decision written by Justice Kennedy, the court reversed the Second Circuit‘s decision not to dismiss a suit against former Attorney General John Ashcroft and others that claimed that the FBI engaged in discriminatory activities following the 9/11 attacks. The court also extended the heightened pleading standard established in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly (2006), which had previously applied only to antitrust law. The number of dismissals greatly increased after the Iqbal
• Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission(2010): In a 5-4 decision in which the majority opinion was delivered by Justice Kennedy, the Court held that the provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act which regulated independent expenditures in political campaigns by corporations, unions, and non-profits violated First Amendment freedom of speech
• National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius(2012): In a 5-4 decision written by Chief Justice Roberts, the Court upheld most of the provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, including the individual mandate to buy health insurance. The mandate was upheld as part of Congress’s power of taxation. In a subsequent case, King v. Burwell (2015), the Court upheld the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, this time in a 6-3 opinion written by Chief Justice Roberts.
• Arizona v. United States(2012): In a 5-3 decision delivered by Justice Kennedy, the Court held that portions of Arizona SB 1070, an Arizona law regarding immigration, unconstitutionally usurped the federal authority to regulate immigration laws and enforcement.
• Shelby County v. Holder(2013): In a 5-4 decision delivered by Justice Roberts, the Court struck down Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which provided a coverage formula for Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. The latter section requires certain states and jurisdictions to obtain federal preclearance before changing voting laws or practices, in an effort to prevent those states and jurisdictions from discriminating against voters. Without a coverage formula, Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is no longer in effect.
• Burwell v. Hobby Lobby(2014): In a 5-4 decision delivered by Justice Alito, the Court exempted closely held corporations from the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate on the basis of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
• Obergefell v. Hodges(2015): In a 5-4 decision delivered by Justice Kennedy, the Court held that the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause both guarantee the right of same-sex couples to marry.
• Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt(2016): In a 5-3 decision delivered by Justice Breyer, the Court struck down restrictions the state of Texas had placed on abortion clinics as an “undue burden” on access to abortion.

Judicial philosophy

The Roberts Court has been described as “conservative in most cases, liberal in some,” with (prior to the death of Justice Scalia) five conservative-leaning justices and four liberal-leaning justices. Alito, Thomas, Kennedy, Roberts, and Scalia (prior to his death) generally have taken more conservative positions, while Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan have generally taken more liberal positions. Souter and Stevens had also been part of the liberal bloc prior to their respective retirements. These two blocs of voters have lined up together in several major cases, though Justice Kennedy has often sided with the liberal bloc. Roberts has also served as a swing vote, often advocating for narrow rulings and compromise among the two blocs of Justices.^[3][5] Though the Court often does divide along ideological lines, attorney and SCOTUSblog founder Tom Goldstein has noted that many cases are decided 9-0 and that the individual judges hold a wide array of views.

The judicial philosophy of Roberts on the Supreme Court has been assessed by leading court commentators including Jeffrey Rosen and Marcia Coyle. Although Roberts is identified as having a conservative judicial philosophy, his vote in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012) upholding the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) has caused reflection in the press concerning the comparative standing of his conservative judicial philosophy compared to other sitting justices of conservative orientation; he is seen as having a more moderate conservative orientation, particularly when his vote to uphold the ACA is compared to Rehnquist’s vote in Bush v. Gore.

Regarding Roberts’ contemporaneous peers on the bench, his judicial philosophy is seen as more moderate and conciliatory than that of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Unlike Scalia, Roberts has not indicated any particularly enhanced reading of originalism or framer’s intentions as has been plainly evident in Scalia’s speeches and writings. Roberts’ strongest inclination on the Court has been to attempt to re-establish the centrist orientation of the Court as being party neutral, in contrast to his predecessor Rehnquist who had devoted significant effort to promote a states rights orientation for the Court. Roberts’ voting pattern reflecting his conservative judicial philosophy is most closely aligned to Samuel Alito on the Court, the latter of whom has also become associated with libertarian trends in the conservative judicial philosophy.