Chief Justice Roberts Asserts Control Over Supreme Court’s Landmark Term

The recently concluded Supreme Court term left stakeholders across the political spectrum largely unsatisfied. President Trump encountered significant setbacks, while liberals expressed concern over decisions that expanded presidential authority and weakened the Voting Rights Act. Conservatives voiced disappointment when Trump-appointed justices occasionally allied with the court’s liberal members.

Yet Chief Justice John Roberts emerged from the term in a position of strength. The outcome represented a personal triumph, as Roberts successfully maintained control of a court that had previously threatened to elude his influence.

“Despite the obvious tensions within the court and the difficulty of managing such a fiercely independent group of jurists, Roberts is on his way to becoming one of the most influential chief justices of all time,” said Vikram Amar, a law professor at the University of California, Davis.

Roberts holds a crucial institutional advantage: while he receives only one vote, he controls the assignment of majority opinions when hein his own majority. During the last term, he participated in the majority in 96 percent of argued cases—surpassing all other justices.

This position enabled him to shape three of the term’s most consequential rulings.

One decision voided the core of Trump’s signature tariff program, potentially triggering refunds of $166 billion in collected duties. Another redefined separation of powers by establishing that the president may dismiss leaders of independent agencies—a move Congress had sought to insulate from political pressure. The third, articulated through powerful constitutional reasoning, reaffirmed that children born in the United States are virtually always entitled to citizenship.

Roberts authored all three majority opinions.

“The tariffs, removal power and birthright citizenship decisions alone would be significant for any chief justice’s legacy,” said Gregory Garre, a lawyer with Latham & Watkins who served as solicitor general under President George W. Bush. “To produce all three in one term is astounding.”

Roberts also strategically assigned other opinions, such as enlisting Justice Samuel Alito to deliver conservative rulings reinterpreting the Voting Rights Act to permit states to modify voting maps that had previously protected minority voting rights. Roberts joined that judgment without reconciling it with his prior 2023 opinion on a similar matter.

His approach appears shaped by lessons from 2022’s Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, where he was isolated in a lone concurrence that stopped short of overturning Roe v. Wade. That moment demonstrated the limits of his influence amid a conservative majority increasingly at odds with his incremental approach to legal change.

Since then, Roberts has adapted: if he cannot moderate outcomes, he joins the majority.

This pragmatic alignment was evident when Trump visited the court in April to advocate for restrictions on birthright citizenship. Roberts remained unmoved, supporting the administration’s loss in that case and others—including challenges to executive orders barring post-election-day ballot counting and deploying the National Guard in Illinois.

“These are the cases President Trump cared about most, and the administration lost across the board,” said Roman Martinez, a lawyer with Latham & Watkins and a former clerk to Roberts. “In each instance, the chief justice forged cross-ideological coalitions including himself, Trump appointees, and the three liberal justices.”

Still, some observers question whether Roberts’ tactical successes translate into lasting institutional legitimacy. Pamela Karlan, a Stanford law professor, noted that while Roberts achieved longstanding policy goals on voting rights and executive power, “I’m not sure he can manage to reverse the court’s sinking poll numbers, especially with so many high-profile 6-3 decisions that benefit the Trump administration.”

For now, Roberts maintains his position. “The chief had his most challenging term since joining the court more than 20 years ago,” said Richard Lazarus, a Harvard law professor and Roberts’ longtime friend.

Lazarus added, “Outside the court, he faced a president who clearly took pleasure in criticizing any justice who diverged from his preferences. Inside, he navigated a fragmented majority of five justices who showed little regard for colleagues outside their ideological camp.”

“The chief,” Lazarus concluded, “has earned the summer recess.”

Source link