Why roberts did it

Bush R. Roberts was unanimously confirmed on May 8, During his two years on the bench, Roberts authored 49 opinions, two of which elicited dissents from other judges. Roberts also authored three dissenting opinions. Roberts left the court to join the Supreme Court of the United States.

This information is updated annually at the end of each term. In the term, Roberts had the highest agreement rate with Brett Kavanaugh. Roberts had the highest disagreement rate with Sonia Sotomayor. He had the highest disagreement rate with Sonia Sotomayor. In the term, Roberts was in the majority in 91 percent of decisions. He and Justice Amy Coney Barrett were in the majority more often than six other justices and less often than one other justice.

He was in the majority in more than any of the eight justices. Across those 10 terms, he has been in the majority for 90 percent of all cases.

The noteworthy cases listed in this section include any case where the justice authored a majority opinion or an dissent. Other cases may be included in this decision if they set or overturn an established legal precedent, are a major point of discussion in an election campaign, receive substantial media attention related to the justice's ruling, or based on our editorial judgment that the case is noteworthy. For more on how we decide which cases are noteworthy, click here.

Since he joined the court through the term, Roberts authored the majority opinion in a decision 30 times and authored one dissent in an decision. The table below details these cases by year. Roberts authored a majority opinion in PennEast Pipeline Co. New Jersey , holding that Section f h authorizes FERC certificate holders to condemn all necessary rights-of-way, whether owned by private parties or by states.

In the court's majority opinion, Chief Justice Roberts wrote: [27]. Roberts authored a majority opinion in United States v. Arthrex Inc.

The court ruled to fix the constitutional issue by removing the statutory provisions that blocked the director of the Patent and Trademark Office PTO from unilaterally reviewing APJ decisions. In the court's majority opinion, Chief Justice Roberts wrote: [29].

Roberts authored a majority opinion in Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California , holding the U. Roberts authored a majority opinion in Georgia v. Org Inc. Roberts authored a majority opinion in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue , holding the application of Article X, Section 6 of the Montana Constitution violated the free exercise clause of the U. Roberts authored a majority opinion in Seila Law v.

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau , holding the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau CFPB , an independent agency that exercised executive powers and had a director protected from at-will termination by the president, was unconstitutional. Roberts authored a majority opinion in Department of Commerce v. New York , ruling that the Trump administration 's decision to add the citizenship question to the census did not violate the Enumeration Clause or the Census Act, but that Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross ' rationale for the decision was inconsistent with the administrative record.

Roberts was joined in part by the following justices: [30]. Roberts authored a majority opinion in a joint ruling for Rucho v. Common Cause and Lamone v. The court ruled that partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions that fall beyond the jurisdiction of the federal judiciary. Roberts wrote: [31]. Roberts authored a majority opinion that overturned the requirement established in Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City that a person claiming unlawful taking of their property by a state or local government must first seek all available options for redress in a state court before petitioning a federal court.

It found that the requirement conflicted with the later ruling in San Remo Hotel, L. City and County of San Francisco that a state court's ruling in such cases precludes any federal judgment, creating a situation where a plaintiff had no opportunity to appeal a taking to the federal government until after it was too late for the federal government to act. Roberts wrote: [32]. Roberts authored a majority opinion in Lamps Plus Inc. Varela , ruling that under "the Federal Arbitration Act, an ambiguous agreement cannot provide the necessary contractual basis for concluding that the parties agreed to submit to class arbitration.

Roberts wrote: [33]. Pre term Click to expand. Under the Affordable Care Act , state governments were required to establish a marketplace through which residents could purchase health insurance.

These marketplaces were called exchanges. If a state failed to create an exchange, the federal government would establish one under the authority of the U. Department of Health and Human Services. Under the Affordable Care Act, individuals were required to purchase health insurance or risk paying a tax penalty from their annual income tax returns unless an individual fell within an exemption for low-income individuals. To limit the number of individuals who fell under the exemption, the Affordable Care Act authorized tax credits to offset the cost of coverage, however, the statutory language stipulated that the credits were for those who enrolled via exchanges established by state governments.

The Internal Revenue Service, by regulation, extended the tax credits to those who enrolled through a marketplace created by the Department of Health and Human Services. The question brought to the court was whether the Internal Revenue Service regulation was in violation of congressional prerogatives under the Affordable Care Act.

Writing for a six-justice majority, Chief Justice John Roberts held that Congress' intent was for the tax credits to go to individuals who signed up for health insurance through the exchanges regardless of whether the exchanges were established by the federal government or a state government.

Sebelius , better known as the challenge to the Obama administration 's Affordable Care Act. Challengers to the law argued that the federal government's power under the Commerce Clause was not valid to make individuals purchase a good or service, in this case, healthcare. Roberts agreed with that interpretation. However, he allowed the law to stand on the basis of Congress' authority to levy a tax.

For a thorough explanation of the federal healthcare act and the challenges it faced in court, see: Obamacare overview. In a statement about the legislation, Paul said:.

Seattle School District No. At issue was whether it was constitutionally permissible for a public school district, and particularly those that had not operated segregated schools in the past, to 1 classify students by race and 2 rely upon such racial classifications in making school assignments. The school districts involved voluntarily adopted student assignment plans that relied upon race to determine which public schools certain children may attend. In Jefferson County, it was used to make certain elementary school assignments and to rule on transfer requests.

In each case, the school districts relied upon an individual student's race in assigning that student to a particular school, so that the racial balance at the school fell within a predetermined range based on the racial composition of the school district as a whole. Parents of students denied assignment to particular schools under these plans solely because of their race brought suit, contending that allocating children to different public schools on the basis of race violated the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of equal protection.

In the case of Hedgepeth v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority , the court Roberts filing the opinion held that a year-old girl's Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights were not violated by her arrest and juvenile detention for violating a "zero tolerance" law against eating or drinking in a Metrorail station. The U. Roberts' dissent became a source of controversy during his confirmation hearings for the Supreme Court of the United States when environmental groups brought attention to his dissenting opinion.

Dissents do not constitute precedent and therefore have no legal standing. Wade decision and reinforced through years of precedent. Roberts, on the other hand, was long positioned on the opposite side of reproductive-rights battles. He began his Washington legal career in the Reagan administration and helped promote the anti-abortion, right-wing social agenda. Last year, when the justices heard a Louisiana abortion dispute, Roberts for the first time voted to strike down an abortion regulation.

He provided the crucial fifth vote, then with four liberals including Ruth Bader Ginsburg , to invalidate a tough Louisiana credentialing law for physicians who perform abortions. The Louisiana law was similar to a measure the Supreme Court struck down in Texas four years earlier. Roberts dissented in that case but felt bound by the court's precedent in the controversy.

This week, Roberts no longer held the pivotal fifth vote. And Roberts failed to prevail on one of the nation's most wrenching controversies. Abortion rights provoke a mix of religious, cultural and economic interests, the fervor of those who believe life begins at conception and the passion of advocates for women's personal autonomy and choice. Abortion is perennially Topic A in presidential campaigns and congressional races, and it has long been a flashpoint of confirmation battles for judicial nominees.

Stephen Breyer gave an important hint about his future on the Supreme Court In this week's Texas case, Roberts argued that it was best to block the law and preserve the status quo, while courts weighed whether the Texas legislature acted properly in shielding public officials from responsibility for the law, essentially leaving it in the hands of private citizens.

He said the difficult arguments deserved full briefing and oral arguments. But the smart, tactical, usually winning chief justice failed to persuade even one member the far right to join him in those arguments.

The conservative majority said the health clinics challenging the law had failed to sufficiently show they would be harmed by the new law taking effect. In particular, this order is not based on any conclusion about the constitutionality of Texas's law.

Franita Tolson, vice dean for faculty at the University of Southern California Gould School of Law, said it is doubtful that Roberts would ultimately be able to convince any other justices to try to uphold Roe v Wade, or whether he wants to. And overturning Roe v Wade might be his personal preference.

John Roberts is no longer the leader of his own court. Who, then, controls it? John Roberts with Amy Coney Barrett by the supreme court last week.