View source for John Roberts

{{Short description|Chief Justice of the United States since 2005}}
{{Other people|John Roberts}}
{{pp-move|small=yes}}
{{pp-vandalism|small=yes}}
{{Use American English|date=February 2022}}
{{Use mdy dates|date=June 2018}}
{{Infobox officeholder
| name                = John Roberts
| image               = Official roberts CJ.jpg
| alt                 = Official portrait of John Roberts as Chief Justice of the United States
| caption             = Official portrait, 2005
| order               = 17th
| office              = Chief Justice of the United States
| nominator           = [[George W. Bush]]
| term_start          = September 29, 2005
| term_end            = 
| predecessor         = [[William Rehnquist]]
| successor           = 
| office1             = Judge of the [[United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit]]
| nominator1          = [[George W. Bush]]
| term_start1         = June 2, 2003
| term_end1           = September 29, 2005
| predecessor1        = [[James L. Buckley]]
| successor1          = [[Patricia Millett]]
| office2             = [[Solicitor General of the United States#List of notable principal deputy solicitors general|Principal Deputy Solicitor General of the United States]]
| president2          = [[George H. W. Bush]]
| term_start2         = October 24, 1989
| term_end2           = January 20, 1993
| predecessor2        = [[Donald B. Ayer]]
| successor2          = [[Paul Bender (jurist)|Paul Bender]]
| office5             = [[White House Counsel|Associate Counsel to the President]]
| president5          = [[Ronald Reagan]]
| term_start5         = November 28, 1982
| term_end5           = April 11, 1986
| predecessor5        = [[J. Michael Luttig]]<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.reaganlibrary.gov/sites/default/files/archives/textual/smof/robertsj.pdf |title=Roberts, John G.: Files, 1982-1986 |date=February 12, 2018 |website=[[Ronald Reagan Presidential Library]] |access-date=July 9, 2019 |archive-date=April 12, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190412033341/https://www.reaganlibrary.gov/sites/default/files/archives/textual/smof/robertsj.pdf |url-status=dead}}</ref>
| successor5          = Robert Kruger<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/appointment-robert-m-kruger-associate-counsel-the-president|title=Appointment of Robert M. Kruger as Associate Counsel to the President |website=[[The American Presidency Project]] |publisher=[[University of California, Santa Barbara]] |access-date=July 9, 2019 |archive-date=July 9, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190709013910/https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/appointment-robert-m-kruger-associate-counsel-the-president |url-status=live}}</ref>
| birth_name          = John Glover Roberts Jr.
| birth_date          = {{birth date and age|1955|1|27}}
| birth_place         = [[Buffalo, New York]], U.S.
| death_date          = 
| death_place         = 
| spouse              = {{marriage|Jane Sullivan|July 27, 1996}}
| children            = 2 (adopted)
| education           = [[Harvard University]] ([[Bachelor of Arts|BA]], [[Juris Doctor|JD]])
| awards              = [[Henry J. Friendly Medal]] (2023)
| signature           = John Roberts signature.svg
| signature_alt       = Cursive signature in ink
| module              = {{Listen
|pos         = center
|embed       = yes
|filename    = John Roberts delivers the opinion of the Court in United States v. Rahimi.ogg
|title       = Roberts's voice
|type        = speech
|description = John Roberts delivers the opinion of the Court in ''[[United States v. Rahimi]]''.<br>Recorded June 21, 2024}}
}}
'''John Glover Roberts Jr.''' (born January 27, 1955) is an American jurist serving since 2005 as the 17th [[chief justice of the United States]]. He has been described as having a [[moderate conservative]] judicial philosophy, though he is primarily an [[Institutionalism in political parties|institutionalist]].<ref>{{Cite news |last=Bassetti |first=Victoria |date=2020-07-01 |title=John Roberts is an institutionalist, not a liberal |url=https://www.ft.com/content/2248b2e3-b911-48ec-9eeb-632c0c26ab16 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221211221248/https://www.ft.com/content/2248b2e3-b911-48ec-9eeb-632c0c26ab16 |archive-date=December 11, 2022 |access-date=2022-04-01 |work=[[Financial Times]]}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Rosen |first=Jeffrey |date=2020-07-13 |title=John Roberts Is Just Who the Supreme Court Needed |url=https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/07/john-roberts-just-who-supreme-court-needed/614053/ |access-date=2022-04-01 |website=[[The Atlantic]] |language=en}}</ref> Regarded as a [[swing vote]] in some cases,<ref>{{Cite news |last=Stevenson |first=Peter W. |date=2021-05-20 |title=Analysis {{!}} Chief Justice John Roberts: From key swing vote to potential bystander? |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/05/20/chief-justice-john-roberts-key-swing-vote-potential-bystander/ |access-date=2024-10-15 |newspaper=Washington Post |language=en-US |issn=0190-8286}}</ref> Roberts has presided over an ideological shift toward conservative jurisprudence on the high court, in which he has authored key opinions.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Cole |first=David |date=2024-08-15 |title=The Supreme Court's Power Grab |url=https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2024/08/15/the-supreme-courts-power-grab/ |access-date=2024-10-15 |work=The New York Review of Books |language=en |volume=71 |issue=13 |issn=0028-7504}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |title=Entering a new Supreme Court term, John Roberts is as enigmatic as ever |url=https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2024/0930/supreme-court-chief-justice-john-roberts |access-date=2024-10-15 |work=Christian Science Monitor |issn=0882-7729}}</ref>

Born in [[Buffalo, New York]], Roberts was raised [[Catholic Church|Catholic]] in [[Northwest Indiana]] and studied at [[Harvard University]], initially intending to become a historian. He graduated in three years with highest distinction, then attended [[Harvard Law School]], where he was an editor of the ''[[Harvard Law Review]].'' Roberts later served as a [[law clerk]] for Judge [[Henry Friendly]] and Justice [[William Rehnquist]] and held positions in the [[United States Department of Justice|Department of Justice]] from 1989 to 1993, during the presidencies of [[Presidency of Ronald Reagan|Ronald Reagan]] and [[Presidency of George H. W. Bush|George H.&nbsp;W. Bush]]. Roberts then built a leading appellate practice, arguing 39 cases before the Supreme Court.{{Sfn|Greenburg|2007|p=186–187}}

In 1992, Bush nominated Roberts to the [[United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit|U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit]], but the [[United States Senate|Senate]] did not hold a confirmation vote. In 2003, Roberts was appointed to that district court by President [[George W. Bush]], who in 2005 nominated him to the Supreme Court—initially as an [[Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States|associate justice]] to fill the vacancy left by Justice [[Sandra Day O'Connor]] and then to chief justice after William Rehnquist's death. Roberts was confirmed by a Senate vote of 78–22. Aged 50, he was the youngest chief justice since [[John Marshall]].<ref name=":3" />

As chief justice, Roberts has authored majority opinions in many [[List of landmark court decisions in the United States|landmark cases]], including ''[[National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius]]'' (upholding most sections of the [[Affordable Care Act]]), ''[[Shelby County v. Holder]]'' (limiting the [[Voting Rights Act of 1965]]), ''[[Trump v. Hawaii]]'' (expanding presidential powers over immigration), ''[[Carpenter v. United States]]'' (expanding [[digital privacy]]), ''[[Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard]]'' (overruling [[Affirmative action|race-based admission]] programs), and [[Trump v. United States (2024)|''Trump v. United States'']] (outlining the extent of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution). Roberts also presided over President [[Donald Trump]]'s [[First impeachment trial of Donald Trump|first impeachment trial]].
{{TOC limit|3}}

== Early life and education <!--Note: Some of these citations apply also to other sentences in their respective paragraph, especially preceding ones.--> ==
Roberts was born on January 27, 1955, in [[Buffalo, New York]], to Rosemary (''[[née]]'' Podrasky) and John Glover "Jack" Roberts Sr., both devout Catholics.{{Sfn|Friedman|Israel|2013|p=466, 468}} His father had [[Irish people|Irish]] and [[Welsh people|Welsh]] ancestry and his mother was a descendant of [[Slovaks|Slovak]] immigrants from [[Szepes]], [[Hungary]].{{Sfn|Biskupic|2019|p=17}} He has two younger sisters, Margaret and Barbara; an elder sister, Kathy, died in 2021.{{Sfn|Biskupic|2019|p=18, 21}}<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/obituaries/kathleen-a-godbey/article_b62f3c6d-0ff6-51d0-84e3-3f087345b889.html?mode=nowapp | title=Kathleen A. Godbey |work=[[The Times of Northwest Indiana|The Times]] |location=[[Hammond, Indiana]] |date=June 30, 2021 |accessdate=March 18, 2025}}</ref> Roberts spent his early childhood years in [[Hamburg, New York]], where his father worked as an [[electrical engineering|electrical engineer]] for the [[Bethlehem Steel|Bethlehem Steel Corporation]]'s factory in [[Lackawanna, New York|Lackawanna]].{{Sfn|Biskupic|2019|p=21}}

In 1965, ten-year-old Roberts and his family moved to [[Long Beach, Indiana]], where his father became the manager of a new steel plant in nearby [[Burns Harbor, Indiana|Burns Harbor]].<ref name="nytimes">{{cite news|last=Purdum|first=Todd S.|author-link=Todd Purdum|author2=Jodi Wilgoren|author3=Pam Belluck|title=Court Nominee's Life Is Rooted in Faith and Respect for Law|work=[[The New York Times]]|date=July 21, 2005|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/21/politics/21nominee.html?ex=1279598400&en=c055515d290a3215&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss|access-date=December 5, 2008|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090417115117/http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/21/politics/21nominee.html?ex=1279598400&en=c055515d290a3215&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss|archive-date=April 17, 2009|url-status=live|df=mdy-all}}</ref> By age 13, Roberts "already had a clear plan for his life."{{Sfn|Stone|2020|p=1015–1016}} He attended the parochial [[La Lumiere School]],<ref name=":1" /> an academically rigorous [[Catholic school|Catholic boarding school]] in [[La Porte, Indiana]],{{Sfn|Stone|2020|p=1015}} where he captained the school's [[American football|football]] team, participated in [[track and field]], and was a regional champion in [[Scholastic wrestling|wrestling]]. He also participated in [[choir]] and [[drama]], and was a co-editor of the school newspaper.<ref name="nytimes"/> He graduated in 1973 as class [[valedictorian]], becoming the first graduate of the La Lumiere School to enroll at Harvard University.{{Sfn|Biskupic|2019|p=29}}

At [[Harvard College]], Roberts dedicated himself to studying history, his [[academic major]]. He had entered Harvard as a [[sophomore]] with second-year standing based on his academic achievements in high school.{{Sfn|Biskupic|2019|p=35–36}} Roberts first roomed in [[Straus Hall]] before moving to [[Leverett House]].<ref name=":2">{{Cite web |last=Guren |first=Adam M. |date=July 15, 2005 |title=Alum Tapped for High Court |url=https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2005/7/15/alum-tapped-for-high-court-john/ |access-date=2022-11-30 |website=[[The Harvard Crimson]]}}</ref> Every summer, he returned home to work at the steel plant his father managed.<ref name="nytimes" /> Although he initially felt obscured among other students, Roberts distinguished himself with professors, meriting multiple distinctions for his scholarly writing.{{Sfn|Biskupic|2019|p=38}} He gained a reputation as a serious student who valued formalism.<ref name=":2" /> Every Sunday, he attended [[Catholic Mass]] at [[St. Paul Church (Cambridge, Massachusetts)|St. Paul Church]].{{Sfn|Biskupic|2019|p=36}}

As an undergraduate, Roberts excelled academically.<ref name="nytimes" /> He focused on modern European history and maintained an interest in politics.{{Sfn|Biskupic|2019|p=35}}  In his first year, he won the university's Edwards Whitaker Scholarship for outstanding scholastic achievement.{{Sfn|Biskupic|2019|p=38}} He intended to pursue a Ph.D. in history to be a professor but also contemplated a legal career.{{Sfn|Biskupic|2019|p=40, 44}} One of Roberts's first papers, "Marxism and Bolshevism: Theory and Practice," won Harvard's William Scott Ferguson Prize for the most outstanding essay by a sophomore history major.{{Sfn|Biskupic|2019|p=38}} An early interest in [[oral advocacy]] also led him to study [[Daniel Webster]], a prominent [[Legal advocate|advocate]] before the Supreme Court.{{Sfn|Biskupic|2019|p=39}} His senior year paper, "The Utopian Conservative: A Study of Continuity and Change in the Thought of Daniel Webster," won a [[Bowdoin Prize]].<ref>{{cite news |last1=Edidin |first1=Peter |date=July 31, 2005 |title=Judge Roberts, Meet Daniel Webster |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/31/weekinreview/judge-roberts-meet-daniel-webster.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201119174547/https://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/31/weekinreview/judge-roberts-meet |archive-date=November 19, 2020 |access-date=July 8, 2019 |website=[[The New York Times]]}}</ref>

In 1976, Roberts obtained his [[Bachelor of Arts]] degree in history, ''[[Latin honors#North America|summa cum laude]]'', with membership in [[Phi Beta Kappa]]. A recent surplus of history graduate students convinced him to attend Harvard Law School for better career prospects, though he maintained his original goal to become a professor.{{Sfn|Biskupic|2019|p=44–45}}{{Refn|Roberts turned down an offer to pursue a doctorate in history at Harvard on a full scholarship.{{sfn|Snyder|2010|p=1217}}|group=lower-alpha}} His first-year performance in law school placed him in the top 15 students in a class of 550 and won him membership on the ''Harvard Law Review''.{{Sfn|Snyder|2010|p=1217}} The journal's president, [[David Leebron]], chose Roberts as its [[managing editor]], despite their differing political views.{{Sfn|Biskupic|2019|p=44–45}}{{Refn|Roberts' colleagues on the ''Harvard Law Review'' also included [[Jane C. Ginsburg]], the daughter of Judge [[Ruth Bader Ginsburg]].{{sfn|Toobin|2007|p=262}}|group=lower-alpha}} Classmate [[David B. Wilkins|David Wilkins]] described Roberts as "more conservative than the typical Harvard Law student in the 1970s" but well-liked by fellow students.<ref name=":2" /> In 1979, Roberts graduated at the top of his class with a [[Juris Doctor]], ''magna cum laude'', despite once having to admit himself to a local hospital for exhaustion. He later regretted that he traveled into Boston on only a couple of occasions during his time at Harvard, being too preoccupied with his studies.<ref>{{Harvnb|Biskupic|2019|pp=45–46}}; {{Harvnb|Snyder|2010|p=1217}}.</ref>

== Early legal career ==
After graduating from law school, Roberts was a [[law clerk]] for Judge [[Henry Friendly]],{{Refn|Harvard students considered a clerkship with Friendly to be "the gold standard"; Charles Davidow, a fellow member of the ''Harvard Law Review'', described Roberts as "a superstar in law school, and the fact that Friendly picked him would be testament to that".{{Sfn|Snyder|2010|p=1215, 1217}}|group=lower-alpha}} one of the most influential judges of the century, at the [[U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit]] from 1979 to 1980.<ref>{{Harvnb|Biskupic|2019|p=46}}; {{Harvnb|Friedman|Israel|2013|p=467}}–468.</ref> Friendly was impressed by Roberts's performance; they shared similar backgrounds,{{Sfn|Snyder|2010|p=1218–1219}} and co-clerk [[Reinier Kraakman]] recalled that "there was a bond between them."{{Sfn|Snyder|2010|p=1221}} When Roberts became a federal judge years later, he identified with Friendly's nonpartisan approach to law and maintained a correspondence with him.{{Sfn|Biskupic|2019|p=51–52, 85–86}}{{Refn|Roberts has considered Friendly "the most influential figure in his life."{{sfn|Friedman|Israel|2013|p=468}} During his Supreme Court confirmation hearings in 2005, Roberts later testified about Friendly: "He had such a total commitment to excellence in his craft, at every stage of the process. Just a total devotion to the rule of law and the confidence that if you just worked hard enough at it, you'd come up with the right answers."{{sfn|Friedman|Israel|2013|p=468}}|group=lower-alpha}} After finishing his clerkship at the Second Circuit in May,{{Sfn|Snyder|2010|p=1221}} Roberts went to clerk for Justice (later Chief Justice) William Rehnquist at the U.S. Supreme Court from 1980 to 1981.<ref name="nytimes" />

At the end of his clerkship with Rehnquist, Roberts worked to gain [[admission to the bar]], studying with [[Michael W. McConnell]], a law clerk of Justice [[William J. Brennan Jr.|William Brennan]]. After the [[1980 United States presidential election|1980 presidential election]], he resolved to work under the new [[Reagan Administration|Reagan administration]].{{Sfn|Biskupic|2019|p=61, 63–64}} Rehnquist recommended him to [[Ken Starr]], who was chief of staff to attorney general [[William French Smith]], and Roberts was named a [[Special Assistant United States Attorney|special assistant]] to the attorney general. After being admitted to the [[District of Columbia Bar|District of Columbia bar]] and arriving to the [[United States Department of Justice|Department of Justice]] in August 1981, he helped [[Sandra Day O'Connor]] prepare for her confirmation hearings.{{Sfn|Biskupic|2019|p=65}}{{Refn|Starr chose Roberts to assist O'Connor in matters concerning abortion during her hearings before the [[Senate Judiciary Committee]]. Roberts later recalled that "the approach was to avoid giving specific responses to any direct questions on legal issues likely to come before the court, but demonstrating in the response a firm command of the subject area and awareness of the relevant precedents and arguments." O'Connor later received widespread support and was confirmed 99–0 on September 21, 1981.{{sfn|Biskupic|2019|p=66–67}}|group=lower-alpha}}[[File:Ronald Reagan Greets John Roberts.jpg|thumb|President Ronald Reagan greeting Roberts in the [[Oval Office]] while Roberts was serving as an associate White House Counsel (1983)|231x231px|left]]

As an assistant to the attorney general, Roberts concentrated on the scope of the [[Voting Rights Act of 1965]], especially Section 2 and [[Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act|Section 5]], both of which Roberts and other Reagan lawyers believed to have unnecessarily intruded on state regulations.{{Sfn|Biskupic|2019|p=70}} He wrote to Friendly, "this is an exciting time to be at the Justice Department, when so much that has been taken for granted for so long is being seriously reconsidered."{{Sfn|Biskupic|2019|p=69}} Among those he worked with were [[William Bradford Reynolds]] in the [[Civil Rights Division]], former classmate [[Richard Lazarus (law professor)|Richard Lazarus]], [[J. Harvie Wilkinson III]], [[Theodore Olson]], and fellow special assistant [[Carolyn Kuhl]].{{Sfn|Biskupic|2019|p=73, 76, 81, 96, 124–125}}

In 1982, Reagan advisor [[Fred Fielding]] recruited Roberts to work at the [[White House]]. Fielding gathered a group of lawyers that also included [[J. Michael Luttig]] and [[Henry L. Garrett III|Henry Garrett]].<ref>{{Harvnb|Biskupic|2019|p=81–82}}; {{Harvnb|Greenburg|2007|p=38}}.</ref> From 1982 to 1986, Roberts was an associate with the [[White House Counsel]].<ref name="nytimes" /> He then entered private practice in [[Washington, D.C.]], as an associate at the law firm Hogan & Hartson (now [[Hogan Lovells]]), working in [[corporate law]].<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20130515055519/http://www.hoganlovells.com/newsmedia/newspubs/detail.aspx?news=456 "Former Hogan & Hartson Partner John G. Roberts, Jr. Confirmed as Chief Justice of the United States"] (Press release), Hogan Lovells, September 29, 2005.</ref> [[E. Barrett Prettyman Jr.]], under whom he was first assigned, was one of the most prominent [[advocate]]s in the country along with [[Rex E. Lee]].{{Sfn|Biskupic|2019|p=93}} Roberts also built a successful practice as an [[Appellate court|appellate]] lawyer,<ref name=":1">{{Cite magazine |last=Toobin |first=Jeffrey |author-link=Jeffrey Toobin |date=2009-05-18 |title=No More Mr. Nice Guy |url=https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/05/25/no-more-mr-nice-guy |access-date=2024-03-26 |magazine=[[The New Yorker]] |language=en-US |issn=0028-792X}}</ref> heading the firm's division for appellate advocacy.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Biographies of the Justices – Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. |url=https://www.scotusblog.com/biographies-of-the-justices/ |access-date=2024-03-26 |website=[[SCOTUSblog]] |language=en-US}}</ref> He made his first appearance before the Supreme Court in ''United States v. Halper'', arguing against the government, and the Court unanimously upheld his arguments.{{Sfn|Friedman|Israel|2013|p=470}}

== Appellate advocacy ==
[[File:Reagan Contact Sheet C29875 (cropped3).jpg|thumb|Roberts with President Reagan on [[Air Force One]] in 1985]]
In 1989, Ken Starr relinquished his judgeship on the D.C. Circuit to become [[Solicitor General of the United States|U.S. Solicitor General]] under President [[George H. W. Bush]]. Needing a deputy, Starr chose Roberts to join the administration as [[Solicitor General of the United States#Composition of the Office of the Solicitor General|Principal Deputy Solicitor General]].{{Sfn|Biskupic|2019|p=94–95}}<ref>{{cite book |title=Register of the U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Courts |date=1990 |publisher=U.S. Government Printing Office Washington: 1990 |page=4 |edition=55th |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=WtSLVJ4zBAwC&q=John+G.+Roberts%2C+Jr.+Oct+24%2C+1989 |access-date=February 24, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220224205920/https://books.google.com/books?id=WtSLVJ4zBAwC&q=John+G.+Roberts%2C+Jr.+Oct+24%2C+1989 |archive-date=February 24, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> "I felt that his experience was good for the political deputy position. [Roberts] was a steady hand, a wise hand. He came in as a person not of vast experience but of vast ability," Starr recalled.{{Sfn|Biskupic|2019|p=95}} With the new appointment, Roberts, whose work had previously been confidential, became a prominent figure at the Supreme Court, leading the filings of the Bush administration and representing it in the media.{{Sfn|Biskupic|2019|p=96}}

As deputy solicitor general, Roberts frequently appeared before the Supreme Court.{{Sfn|Friedman|Israel|2013|p=471}} He argued for a number of conservative positions, including those against abortion, an extensive [[federal jurisdiction]] and policies that afforded special benefits to minority groups.{{Sfn|Biskupic|2019|p=102–104}} In 1990, he successfully argued his first case in ''Atlantic Richfield Company v. USA Petroleum Company'', which concerned [[Antitrust|anti-trust]] law, and then successfully argued the [[Standing (law)|standing]] case of ''Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation'', which became a hallmark in the field.{{Sfn|Friedman|Israel|2013|p=470–471}} When Starr recused himself in ''[[Metro Broadcasting, Inc. v. FCC]]'', Roberts took his place, arguing that the use of racial preferences by the [[Federal Communications Commission]] (FCC) was unconstitutional. The position failed to convince the Court, which announced on June 27, 1990, that it had sided with the FCC. Government attorneys, surprised by Roberts's stance against the FCC, discussed whether it contributed to a politicization of the office, as the Solicitor General traditionally defended the government.{{Sfn|Biskupic|2019|p=97–99}} [[Thomas W. Merrill|Thomas Merrill]], a deputy for the Solicitor General, described Roberts's candid position simply as: "This affirmative action program violated the Constitution, and we should present that to the Supreme Court."{{Sfn|Biskupic|2019|p=99}}
[[File:Judge Henry Friendly.jpg|thumb|Roberts idealized his judicial mentor, Judge [[Henry Friendly]], and described Friendly as the "exemplar of judicial modesty".{{Sfn|Snyder|2010|p=1149, 1151, 1215–1216}}]]
When [[Clarence Thomas]] was confirmed to the Supreme Court in 1991, Roberts's proven experience in complex litigation for the Bush administration made him a leading candidate to fill Thomas's vacancy on the [[U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia]].{{Sfn|Biskupic|2019|p=109–110}} On January 27, 1992, Bush nominated Roberts, who had just turned 37 years old, to the D.C. Circuit, and Starr urged Senator [[Joe Biden]], chair of the [[United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary|Senate Judiciary Committee]], to schedule a hearing despite an upcoming election year. Democratic lobbyists and progressive interest groups successfully encouraged Biden to stall the process.<ref>{{Harvnb|Biskupic|2019|pp=111–112}}; {{Harvnb|Friedman|Israel|2013|p=471}}.</ref> As [[Bill Clinton]] defeated Bush in the [[1992 United States presidential election|1992 presidential election]], Roberts's nomination lapsed with no Senate vote and expired at the end of the [[102nd Congress]].<ref name="georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov">{{cite web |title=Judicial Nominations – Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. |url=https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/judicialnominees/roberts.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160114014835/http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/judicialnominees/roberts.html |archive-date=January 14, 2016 |access-date=January 31, 2016 |website=George W. Bush {{!}} White House archives |publisher=[[whitehouse.gov]] |df=mdy-all}}</ref>{{Sfn|Greenburg|2007|p=186}}

In January 1993, Roberts returned to Hogan and Hartson, where, finding great success as an advocate, he began to regularly appear again before the Supreme Court.{{Sfn|Biskupic|2019|p=112}} With a reputation as the leading private Supreme Court litigator, Roberts often represented corporations that sued individuals or the government. He was Hogan and Hartson's most prominent [[Partner lawyer|partner]], arguing 18 Supreme Court cases from 1993 to 2003 and 20 in nationwide appellate courts while also doing work ''[[pro bono]]'', demonstrating expertise in a wide variety of different fields.{{Sfn|Friedman|Israel|2013|p=471–473}}{{Sfn|Stone|2020|p=1019}}

In June 1995, to Roberts's satisfaction, the Supreme Court overruled his previous loss of ''Metro Broadcasting, Inc. v. FCC'' in ''[[Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña]]'', establishing that the government must treat people on an individual basis.{{Sfn|Biskupic|2019|p=113}} The next year, his ''pro bono'' contributions included giving fundamental aid to [[gay rights activists]] in the landmark case of ''[[Romer v. Evans]]'' (1996).<ref>{{cite web |last=Serrano |first=Richard A. |date=August 4, 2005 |title=Roberts Donated Help to Gay Rights Case |url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2005-aug-04-na-roberts4-story.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121108112026/http://articles.latimes.com/2005/aug/04/nation/na-roberts4 |archive-date=November 8, 2012 |access-date=July 3, 2012 |work=[[The Los Angeles Times]] |df=mdy-all}}</ref> During the [[2000 United States presidential election|2000 presidential election]], Roberts went to [[Florida]] to assist [[George W. Bush]],{{Sfn|Stone|2020|p=1019–1020}} by which time [[Jeffrey Toobin]] identified him as "among the top advocates of his generation".{{Sfn|Toobin|2007|p=149}} According to biographer [[Joan Biskupic]], he built a reputation "for his powers of persuasion and tireless preparation", and "his meticulous preparation and unflagging composure inspired confidence among his well-heeled clients."{{Sfn|Biskupic|2019|p=1–2, 119}} His arguments against government regulation often appealed to Rehnquist and the Court's conservatives while his style and skill in rhetoric won him the respect of [[John Paul Stevens]] and the Court's liberals.{{Sfn|Biskupic|2019|p=119–120}} Democrats and Republicans alike widely viewed Roberts as one of the most distinguished advocates to appear before the Supreme Court.<ref>{{Harvnb|Greenburg|2007|p=186–187}}; {{Harvnb|Biskupic|2019|p=131}}.</ref>
{| class="wikitable sortable plainrowheaders"
|+ Selected cases
|-
! Case
! Argued
! Decided
! Represented
|-
| ''[[First Options v. Kaplan]]'', [https://archive.today/20130102142458/http://laws.findlaw.com/us/514/938.html 514 U.S. 938]
| March 22, 1995
| May 22, 1995
| Respondent
|-
| ''[[Adams v. Robertson]]'', [http://laws.findlaw.com/us/520/83.html 520 U.S. 83]{{Dead link|date=July 2024 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}
| January 14, 1997
| March 3, 1997
| Respondent
|-
| ''[[Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government]]'', [https://archive.today/20130102194617/http://laws.findlaw.com/us/522/520.html 522 U.S. 520]
| December 10, 1997
| February 25, 1999
| Petitioner
|-
| ''[[Feltner v. Columbia Pictures Television, Inc.]]'', [https://archive.today/20130104051131/http://laws.findlaw.com/us/523/340.html 523 U.S. 340]
| January 21, 1998
| March 31, 1998
| Petitioner
|-
| ''[[National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Smith]]'', [https://archive.today/20130102152947/http://laws.findlaw.com/us/525/459.html 525 U.S. 459]
| January 20, 1999
| February 23, 1999
| Petitioner
|-
| ''[[Rice v. Cayetano]]'', [https://archive.today/20130103025617/http://laws.findlaw.com/us/528/495.html 528 U.S. 495]
| October 6, 1999
| February 23, 2000
| Respondent
|-
| ''[[Eastern Associated Coal Corp. v. Mine Workers]]'', [https://archive.today/20130102234430/http://laws.findlaw.com/us/531/57.html 531 U.S. 57]
| October 2, 2000
| November 28, 2000
| Petitioner
|-
| ''[[TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc.]]'', [https://archive.today/20130102140555/http://laws.findlaw.com/us/532/23.html 532 U.S. 23]
| November 29, 2000
| March 20, 2001
| Petitioner
|-
| ''[[Toyota Motor Manufacturing v. Williams]]'', [https://archive.today/20130102171315/http://laws.findlaw.com/us/534/184.html 534 U.S. 184]
| November 7, 2001
| January 8, 2002
| Petitioner
|-
| ''[[Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency]]'', [https://archive.today/20130102171615/http://laws.findlaw.com/us/535/302.html 535 U.S. 302]
| January 7, 2002
| April 23, 2002
| Respondent
|-
| ''[[Rush Prudential HMO, Inc. v. Moran]]'', [https://archive.today/20130102231141/http://laws.findlaw.com/us/536/355.html 536 U.S. 355]
| January 16, 2002
| June 20, 2002
| Petitioner
|-
| ''[[Gonzaga University v. Doe]]'', [https://archive.today/20130102153408/http://laws.findlaw.com/us/536/273.html 536 U.S. 273]
| April 24, 2002
| June 20, 2002
| Petitioner
|-
| ''[[Barnhart v. Peabody Coal Co.]]'', [https://archive.today/20130102141112/http://laws.findlaw.com/us/537/149.html 537 U.S. 149]
| October 8, 2002
| January 15, 2003
| Respondent
|-
| ''[[Smith v. Doe]]'', [https://archive.today/20130103022823/http://laws.findlaw.com/us/538/84.html 538 U.S. 84]
| November 13, 2002
| March 5, 2003
| Petitioner
|}

== U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ==
[[File:Federal judicial nominees listen to President George W. Bush as he announces their nominations.jpg|left|thumb|Roberts (second row, rightmost) listens with other candidates as Bush announces their judicial nominations in May 2001.]]
When [[George W. Bush]] won the contested [[2000 United States presidential election|2000 presidential election]], journalists speculated about whom he might consider as possible nominees for the Supreme Court.{{Sfn|Biskupic|2019|p=117}} Luttig, Wilkinson, and other Reagan officials were leading candidates, but Judge [[Alberto Gonzales]] of the [[Texas Supreme Court]], a close supporter of Bush, also emerged and had a chance to be the first Latino nominee.{{Sfn|Biskupic|2019|p=118–119}} Roberts, who had not worked in government while [[Bill Clinton]] was in office, did not appear on lists compiled by Bush supporters, advocacy groups, or the media, but nonetheless remained a strong candidate for a Republican nomination and was poised to be re-nominated to the D.C. Circuit, often used as a platform for Supreme Court nomination.{{Sfn|Biskupic|2019|p=119}}

On May 9, 2001, Bush nominated Roberts to a seat on the [[United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit|U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit]] to replace Judge [[James L. Buckley]], who had retired.<ref>''Nominations'', 2001 ''[[Congressional Record]]'', Vol.&nbsp;147, Page&nbsp;[https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CREC-2001-05-09/pdf/CREC-2001-05-09-senate.pdf S4773] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191212164835/https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CREC-2001-05-09/pdf/CREC-2001-05-09-senate.pdf |date=December 12, 2019 }} (May 9, 2001)</ref> Unlike in 1992 when his first nomination stalled in the Democratic-majority Senate, Roberts's nomination came when Republicans had secured a one-vote Senate majority. But it soon lost that majority when Senator [[Jim Jeffords]] left the party to become an [[Independent politician|independent]], jeopardizing Roberts's candidacy, which stalled once again when Senate Democrats refused to hold any nomination hearings.<ref>{{Harvnb|Biskupic|2019|p=131}}; {{Harvnb|Friedman|Israel|2013|p=473}}.</ref> In 2002, [[2002 United States Senate elections|Republicans regained control of the Senate]] and Roberts finally received a hearing by the Senate Judiciary Committee.{{Sfn|Biskupic|2019|p=132}}[[File:John Roberts.jpg|thumb|Roberts as a judge on the [[U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit]] ({{Circa|2003}})|257x257px]]

Supported by a bipartisan letter of support signed by more than 150 members of the [[District of Columbia Bar]]—including White House counsels [[Lloyd Cutler]], [[C. Boyden Gray]], and Solicitor General [[Seth Waxman]]—the Judiciary Committee recommended Roberts by a vote of 16 to 3,{{Refn|Democrats [[Ted Kennedy]] (Massachusetts), [[Chuck Schumer]] (New York), and [[Dick Durbin]] (Illinois) were those who opposed Roberts's nomination.{{Sfn|Biskupic|2019|p=135}}|group=lower-alpha}} and the Senate confirmed him unanimously by [[voice vote]] on May 8, 2003.<ref>{{Harvnb|Toobin|2007|p=264}}; {{Harvnb|Biskupic|2019|p=133, 135}}; {{Harvnb|Greenburg|2007|p=187}}.</ref> On June 2, he received his judicial commission.<ref>{{FJC Bio|nid=1391841}}</ref> Even when Roberts had not yet fully assumed his role as a circuit judge, White House Counsel officers listed him on their shortlist of Supreme Court candidates.{{Sfn|Toobin|2007|p=264–265}}

Roberts authored 49 opinions during his two-year service on the D.C. Circuit, many of which concerned decisions by the [[Federal Communications Commission]] and the [[Federal Energy Regulatory Commission]].{{Sfn|Friedman|Israel|2013|p=473}} His opinions often employed a "characteristically crisp, clear writing style" that favored the use of imagery and idioms.{{Sfn|Biskupic|2019|p=136}}{{Refn|Roberts, like some other judges on the D.C. Circuit, borrowed from classical works in writing his opinions, and he often quoted [[Voltaire]], [[Ralph Waldo Emerson]], and [[Homer]]. According to legal scholar Laura Krugman Ray, he was intent on "finding ways to leaven his utilitarian prose with personalized elements of diction, metaphor, allusion, syntax, and tone."{{Sfn|Biskupic|2019|p=136}}|group=lower-alpha}} Most of the disputes he reviewed concerned government regulation, union rights, and [[collective bargaining]],{{Sfn|Biskupic|2019|p=136}} but he also wrote on environmental law,{{Refn|Including two important decisions, firstly in ''Sierra Club v. E.P.A.'' (2004), rejecting claims of an environmental rights group that the [[United States Environmental Protection Agency|Environmental Protection Agency]] (EPA) should have enforced stricter measures on air pollution, then in ''Independent Equipment Dealers Ass'n v. E.P.A.'' (2004), concerning the EPA's role under the [[Administrative Procedure Act]].{{Sfn|Friedman|Israel|2013|p=473}}|group=lower-alpha}} criminal law,{{Refn|Usually ruling in favor of the government, including in ''United States v. Bolla'' (2003), which upheld a harsh securities fraud sentence, and in ''United States v. Lawson'' (2005), which affirmed a bank robbery conviction based on photo identification.{{Sfn|Friedman|Israel|2013|p=474}}|group=lower-alpha}} and procedural matters.{{Sfn|Friedman|Israel|2013|p=473–475}} One case, ''Hedgepeth ex rel Hedgepeth v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit'' (2004), garnered media attention when Roberts found that Washington police properly detained a 12-year-old girl who ate in violation of a [[zero tolerance policy]] against eating in a metro station.{{Sfn|Friedman|Israel|2013|p=474}} His opinions generally reflected a conservative judicial philosophy, including in areas of civil rights and executive power.{{Sfn|Friedman|Israel|2013|p=475}} The brevity of his tenure and his cautiousness in deciding cases left little for potential opponents to scrutinize while he made rulings as a circuit judge.{{Sfn|Biskupic|2019|p=138}}

== Nomination to the Supreme Court of the United States (2005) ==
{{Main|John Roberts Supreme Court nomination}}
[[File:Robertsoath6.jpg|thumb|President [[George W. Bush]] announces Roberts's nomination to be Chief Justice (2005).]]
By the time of the [[2004 United States presidential election|2004 presidential election]], Justice Rehnquist had been fatally ill and senior Bush administration advisors under [[Karl Rove]] began assessing the potential candidates to replace him. Among them, Roberts stood out for his experience as a Supreme Court advocate, which had brought him the favorable attention of not just conservatives but also liberals such as [[Ruth Bader Ginsburg]].{{Sfn|Greenburg|2007|p=185–186, 188}}

On July 19, 2005, [[George W. Bush Supreme Court candidates|President Bush nominated]] Roberts to the U.S. Supreme Court to fill a vacancy to be created by the impending retirement of Justice [[Sandra Day O'Connor]]. Roberts's nomination was the first Supreme Court nomination since [[Stephen Breyer]]'s in 1994. On September 3, 2005, while Roberts's confirmation was pending before the Senate, Chief Justice [[William H. Rehnquist]] died. Two days later, Bush withdrew Roberts's nomination as O'Connor's successor and nominated Roberts to succeed Rehnquist as chief justice.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/JusticeNomi |title=Chief Justice Nomination Announcement |work=[[C-SPAN]] |date=September 5, 2005 |access-date=April 14, 2011 |archive-date=October 18, 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121018103621/http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/JusticeNomi |url-status=live}}</ref>

=== Roberts's testimony on his jurisprudence ===
During his confirmation hearings, Roberts said he did not have a comprehensive jurisprudential philosophy and did "not think beginning with an all-encompassing approach to constitutional interpretation is the best way to faithfully construe the document."<ref name=autogenerated1 /><ref name="multiple1" /> Roberts compared judges to baseball umpires: "[I]t's my job to call balls and strikes, and not to pitch or bat."<ref>{{cite news | url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/13/AR2005091300693.html | title=Transcript: Day One of the Roberts Hearings | newspaper=[[The Washington Post]] | date=September 13, 2005 | access-date=July 4, 2012 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121019142313/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/13/AR2005091300693.html | archive-date=October 19, 2012 | url-status=live | df=mdy-all }}</ref> Among the issues he discussed during the hearings were:
[[File:John Roberts Confirmation Hearings.jpg|thumb|Roberts testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee]]

==== Commerce Clause ====
In Senate hearings, Roberts said:

{{blockquote|Starting with ''[[McCulloch v. Maryland]]'', Chief Justice [[John Marshall]] gave a very broad and expansive reading to the powers of the federal government and explained generally that if the ends be legitimate, then any means chosen to achieve them are within the power of the federal government, and cases interpreting that, throughout the years, have come down. Certainly, by the time ''[[United States v. Lopez|Lopez]]'' was decided, many of us had learned in law school that it was just sort of a formality to say that [[Commerce Clause|interstate commerce]] was affected and that cases weren't going to be thrown out that way. ''Lopez'' certainly breathed new life into the [[Commerce Clause]].

I think it remains to be seen, in subsequent decisions, how rigorous a showing, and in many cases, it is just a showing. It's not a question of an abstract fact—does this affect interstate commerce or not—but has this body, the Congress, demonstrated the impact on interstate commerce that drove them to legislate? That's a very important factor. It wasn't present in ''Lopez'' at all. I think the members of Congress had heard the same thing I had heard in law school, that this is unimportant—and they hadn't gone through the process of establishing a record in that case.<ref name="multiple1">[http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/pdf/108hrg/92548.pdf ''Hearings before the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, 108th Congress, 1st Session''] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111121190047/http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/pdf/108hrg/92548.pdf |date=November 21, 2011 }}, [[United States Government Printing Office|U.S. Government Printing Office]]. Retrieved April 12, 2010.</ref>}}

==== Federalism ====
Roberts said the following about [[Federalism in the United States|federalism]] in a 1999 radio interview:

{{blockquote|We have gotten to the point these days where we think the only way we can show we're serious about a problem is if we pass a federal law, whether it is the Violence Against Women Act or anything else. The fact of the matter is conditions are different in different states, and state laws can be more—relevant is I think exactly the right term, more attuned to the different situations in New York, as opposed to Minnesota, and that is what the federal system is based on.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/pdf/108hrg/92548.pdf |title=Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate |publisher=Access.gpo.gov |access-date=May 21, 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111121190047/http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/pdf/108hrg/92548.pdf |archive-date=November 21, 2011 |url-status=dead |df=mdy-all }}</ref>}}

==== Reviewing Acts of Congress ====
At a Senate hearing, Roberts said:

{{blockquote|The Supreme Court has, throughout its history, on many occasions described the deference that is due to legislative judgments. Justice Holmes described assessing the constitutionality of an act of Congress as the gravest duty that the Supreme Court is called upon to perform. ... It's a principle that is easily stated and needs to be observed in practice, as well as in theory.

Now, the Court, of course, has the obligation, and has been recognized since ''[[Marbury v. Madison]]'', to assess the constitutionality of acts of Congress, and when those acts are challenged, it is the obligation of the Court to say what the law is. The determination of when deference to legislative policy judgments goes too far and becomes abdication of the judicial responsibility, and when scrutiny of those judgments goes too far on the part of the judges and becomes what I think is properly called [[judicial activism]]—that is certainly the central dilemma of having an unelected, as you describe it correctly, undemocratic judiciary in a democratic republic.<ref name="multiple1" />}}

==== ''Stare decisis'' ====
On the subject of ''[[stare decisis]]'', referring to ''[[Brown v. Board of Education]]'', the decision overturning school [[Racial segregation|segregation]], Roberts said: "the Court in that case, of course, overruled a prior decision. I don't think that constitutes judicial activism because obviously if the decision is wrong, it should be overruled. That's not activism. That's applying the law correctly."<ref>{{cite press release|title=Testimony of the Honorable Dick Thornburgh|publisher=[[United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary]]|date=September 15, 2005|url=http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=1611&wit_id=4609|access-date=December 5, 2008|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081205031655/http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=1611&wit_id=4609|archive-date=December 5, 2008|url-status=dead|df=mdy-all}}</ref>

==== ''Roe v. Wade'' ====
As a lawyer for the Reagan administration, Roberts wrote legal memos defending administration policies on [[abortion]].{{Sfn|Greenburg|2007|p=232}} At his nomination hearing, he testified that the legal memos represented the views of the administration he was representing at the time and not necessarily his own.<ref name="rasoai">{{cite news|last=Goldstein|first=Amy|author2=Charles Babington|title=Roberts Avoids Specifics on Abortion Issue|newspaper=[[The Washington Post]]|date=September 15, 2005|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/13/AR2005091300682.html|access-date=December 6, 2008|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080829201140/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/13/AR2005091300682.html|archive-date=August 29, 2008|url-status=live|df=mdy-all}}</ref> "I was a staff lawyer; I didn't have a position," Roberts said.<ref name="rasoai"/> As a lawyer in the [[George H. W. Bush administration]], Roberts signed a legal brief urging the court to overturn ''[[Roe v. Wade]]''.{{Sfn|Greenburg|2007|p=226}}

In private meetings with senators before his confirmation, Roberts testified that ''Roe'' was settled law, but added that it was subject to the legal principle of ''[[stare decisis]]'',{{Sfn|Greenburg|2007|p=233}} meaning that while the Court must give some weight to the precedent, it was not legally bound to uphold it.

In his Senate testimony, Roberts said that, while sitting on the [[Circuit Court|Appellate Court]], he had an obligation to respect precedents established by the Supreme Court, including the right to abortion. He said: "''[[Roe v. Wade]]'' is the settled law of the land. ... There is nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent, as well as ''[[Planned Parenthood v. Casey|Casey]]''." Following nominees' traditional reluctance to indicate which way they might vote on an issue likely to come before the Supreme Court, he did not explicitly say whether he would vote to overturn either.<ref name=autogenerated1>{{cite web|last=[[United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary]]|title=Confirmation Hearings on Federal Appointments|publisher=[[United States Government Publishing Office|Government Printing Office]]|year=2003|url=http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_senate_hearings&docid=f:92548.wais|access-date=December 6, 2008|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081208125417/http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_senate_hearings&docid=f:92548.wais|archive-date=December 8, 2008|url-status=live|df=mdy-all}}</ref> [[Jeffrey Rosen (legal academic)|Jeffrey Rosen]] said, "I wouldn't bet on Chief Justice Roberts's siding unequivocally with the anti-''Roe'' forces."<ref name=AtlanticRosen>{{cite news|last=Rosen|first=Jeffrey|author-link=Jeffrey Rosen (legal academic)|url=https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2006/06/the-day-after-roe/304882/|title=The Day After Roe|work=[[The Atlantic]]|access-date=May 20, 2019|date=June 2006|archive-date=June 12, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190612011834/https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2006/06/the-day-after-roe/304882/|url-status=live}}</ref>

=== Confirmation ===
On September 22, 2005, the [[Senate Judiciary Committee]] approved Roberts's nomination by a vote of 13–5, with senators [[Ted Kennedy]], [[Dick Durbin|Richard Durbin]], [[Charles Schumer]], [[Joe Biden]], and [[Dianne Feinstein]] opposed. The full Senate confirmed Roberts on September 29 by a margin of 78–22.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00245 |title=U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote |publisher=Senate.gov |access-date=August 26, 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100808055035/http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00245 |archive-date=August 8, 2010 |url-status=live |df=mdy-all }}</ref> All Republicans and the one Independent voted for Roberts; the Democrats split evenly, 22–22. Roberts was confirmed by what was, historically, a narrow margin for a Supreme Court justice,<ref name=":3">{{cite web |title=Biographies of the Robes: John Glover Roberts, Jr. |url=https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/supremecourt/future/robes_roberts.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211006165618/https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/supremecourt/future/robes_roberts.html |archive-date=October 6, 2021 |access-date=March 8, 2022 |website=[[PBS]] |publisher=[[WNET]]}}</ref> but all subsequent confirmation votes have been even narrower.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00002 |title=Roll call vote on the Nomination (Confirmation Samuel A. Alito, Jr., of New Jersey, to be an Associate Justice)|publisher=United States Senate|date=January 31, 2006|access-date=August 5, 2010|url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080829201552/https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00002|archive-date=August 29, 2008}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00262|title=Roll call vote on the Nomination (Confirmation Sonia Sotomayor, of New York, to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court)|publisher=United States Senate|date=August 6, 2009|access-date=August 5, 2010|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100804125437/http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00262|archive-date=August 4, 2010|url-status=live|df=mdy-all}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=2&vote=00229|title=Roll call vote on the Nomination (Confirmation Elena Kagan of Massachusetts, to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the U.S.)|publisher=United States Senate|date=August 5, 2010|access-date=August 5, 2010|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100807094609/http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=2&vote=00229|archive-date=August 7, 2010|url-status=live|df=mdy-all}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=115&session=1&vote=00111|title=Roll call vote on the Nomination (Confirmation Neil M. Gorsuch of Colorado, to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the U.S.)|publisher=United States Senate|date=April 7, 2017|access-date=February 12, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170429222758/https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=115&session=1&vote=00111|archive-date=April 29, 2017|url-status=live|df=mdy-all}}</ref>

== U.S. Supreme Court ==
{{main|Roberts Court}}
[[File:Swearing-In of Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts.jpg|left|thumb|Roberts is sworn in as Chief Justice by Justice [[John Paul Stevens]] in the East Room of the [[White House]] as President Bush and Roberts's wife Jane look on, September 29, 2005.]]
{{Conservatism US|jurists}}

Roberts took the [[United States Constitution|constitutional]] [[oath of office#United States|oath of office]], administered by Associate Justice [[John Paul Stevens]] at the [[White House]], on September 29, 2005. On October 3, he took the judicial oath provided for by the [[Judiciary Act of 1789]] at the [[United States Supreme Court building]].

Justice [[Antonin Scalia]] said that Roberts "pretty much run[s] the show the same way" as Rehnquist, albeit "let[ting] people go on a little longer at conference ... but [he'll] get over that."<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/9141 |title=A conversation with Justice Antonin Scalia |publisher=Charlie Rose |access-date=August 7, 2010 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090705104255/http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/9141 |archive-date=July 5, 2009}}</ref> Analysts such as [[Jeffrey Toobin]] have portrayed Roberts as a consistent advocate for conservative principles.<ref>{{cite magazine| last=Toobin| first=Jeffrey| title=No More Mr. Nice Guy| magazine=[[The New Yorker]]| date=May 25, 2009| url=https://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/05/25/090525fa_fact_toobin| access-date=June 28, 2009| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090627025055/http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/05/25/090525fa_fact_toobin| archive-date=June 27, 2009| url-status=live| df=mdy-all}}</ref> [[Garrett Epps]] called Roberts's prose "crystalline, vivid, and often humorous."<ref name=epps>{{Cite book| publisher = University of Pennsylvania Press| isbn = 978-0-8122-9130-8| last = Epps| first = Garrett| title = American Justice 2014: Nine Clashing Visions on the Supreme Court| date = 2014-09-08| url = https://books.google.com/books?id=6mRyBAAAQBAJ| pages = 21–33| access-date = August 5, 2018| archive-date = August 4, 2020| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20200804014110/https://books.google.com/books?id=6mRyBAAAQBAJ| url-status = live}}</ref>

Seventh Circuit judge [[Diane Sykes]], surveying Roberts's first term on the Court, concluded that his jurisprudence "appears to be strongly rooted in the discipline of traditional legal method, evincing a fidelity to text, structure, history, and the constitutional hierarchy. He exhibits the restraint that flows from the careful application of established decisional rules and the practice of reasoning from the case law. He appears to place great stock in the process-oriented tools and doctrinal rules that guard against the aggregation of judicial power and keep judicial discretion in check: jurisdictional limits, structural federalism, [[textualism]], and the procedural rules that govern the scope of judicial review."<ref>Diane S. Sykes, ''"Of a Judiciary Nature": Observations on Chief Justice Roberts's First Opinions'', 34 Pepp. L. Rev. 1027 (2007).</ref> Roberts has been said to operate under an approach of [[judicial minimalism]] in his decisions,<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Silagi|first=Alex|date=2014-05-01|title=Selective Minimalism: The Judicial Philosophy Of Chief Justice John Roberts|url=https://scholarship.shu.edu/student_scholarship/572|journal=Law School Student Scholarship|access-date=December 8, 2018|archive-date=December 10, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181210063307/https://scholarship.shu.edu/student_scholarship/572/|url-status=live}}</ref> having said, "[i]f it is not necessary to decide more to a case, then in my view it is necessary not to decide more to a case."<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/22/washington/22justice.html|title=Chief Justice Says His Goal Is More Consensus on Court|agency=The Associated Press|date=2006-05-22|work=[[The New York Times]]|access-date=2018-12-08|language=en-US|issn=0362-4331|archive-date=December 9, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181209124212/https://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/22/washington/22justice.html|url-status=live}}</ref> His decision-making and leadership seems to demonstrate an intention to preserve the Court's power and legitimacy while maintaining judicial independence.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/15/opinion/trump-roberts-shutdown.html|title=Opinion {{!}} Trump Tries to Destroy, and Justice Roberts Tries to Save, What Makes America Great|last=Friedman|first=Thomas L.|date=2019-01-15|work=[[The New York Times]]|access-date=2019-01-16|language=en-US|issn=0362-4331|archive-date=January 16, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190116115658/https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/15/opinion/trump-roberts-shutdown.html|url-status=live}}</ref>

In November 2018, the [[Associated Press]] approached Roberts for comment after President [[Donald Trump]] called a [[Jon S. Tigar|jurist]] who ruled against his asylum policy an "Obama judge." Roberts responded: "[w]e do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them." His remarks were widely interpreted as a rebuke of Trump's comment.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46294734 |title=Chief justice rebukes Trump's Obama taunt |date=November 21, 2018 |work=[[BBC News]] |access-date=November 21, 2018 |language=en-GB |archive-date=November 21, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181121191611/https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46294734 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/rare-rebuke-chief-justice-roberts-slams-trump-comment-about-obama-n939016 |title=In rare rebuke, Chief Justice Roberts slams Trump for comment about 'Obama judge' |work=[[NBC News]]|access-date=November 21, 2018 |language=en-US |archive-date=November 21, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181121213935/https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/rare-rebuke-chief-justice-roberts-slams-trump-comment-about-obama-n939016 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite magazine |last1=Cassidy |first1=John |title=Why Did Chief Justice John Roberts Decide to Speak Out Against Trump? |url=https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/why-did-chief-justice-john-roberts-decide-to-speak-out-against-trump |magazine=[[The New Yorker]] |language=en-US |access-date=October 7, 2020 |archive-date=October 20, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201020095123/https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/why-did-chief-justice-john-roberts-decide-to-speak-out-against-trump |url-status=live}}</ref> As chief justice, Roberts presided over the [[first impeachment trial of Donald Trump]], which began on January 16 and ended on February 5, 2020.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Biskupic|author-link=Joan Biskupic|first1=Joan |title=John Roberts presides over the impeachment trial -- but he isn't in charge |url=https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/21/politics/john-roberts-trump-impeachment-trial-strategy/index.html |website=[[CNN]]|date=January 21, 2020 |access-date=October 7, 2020 |archive-date=October 8, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201008220831/https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/21/politics/john-roberts-trump-impeachment-trial-strategy/index.html |url-status=live}}</ref> Roberts did not preside over Trump's [[Second impeachment trial of Donald Trump|second impeachment trial]], believing that the Constitution requires only that the chief justice preside in the trial of a sitting president, not of a former president.<ref>{{cite news |last=Kruzel |first=John |date=January 27, 2021 |title=Why John Roberts's absence from Senate trial isn't a surprise |url=https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/535977-why-john-robertss-absence-from-senate-trial-isnt-a-surprise |work=[[The Hill (newspaper)|The Hill]] |access-date=February 15, 2021}}</ref>

Although Roberts's judicial philosophy is considered conservative, he is seen as having a more moderate orientation than his predecessor, William Rehnquist, particularly when ''[[Bush v. Gore]]'' is compared to Roberts's vote for the ACA: his vote in ''[[National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius]]'' to uphold the [[Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act]] (ACA) caused the press to contrast his Court with the [[Rehnquist Court]].<ref name="Scalia, Antonin 2008">{{cite book|last1=Scalia|first1=Antonin|title=Making your case: the art of persuading judges|last2=Garner|first2=Bryan A.|publisher=Thomson/West|year=2008|isbn=9780314184719|location=St. Paul, Minnesota|author-link2=Bryan A. Garner}}</ref> Roberts's judicial philosophy is also seen as more moderate and conciliatory than [[Antonin Scalia]]'s or [[Clarence Thomas]]'s.<ref name="newrepublic">{{cite magazine|last=Rosen|first=Jeffrey|author-link=Jeffrey Rosen (legal academic)|title=Jeffrey Rosen: Big Chief – The New Republic|magazine=[[The New Republic]]|url=https://newrepublic.com/article/politics/magazine/104898/john-roberts-supreme-court-aca|url-status=live|access-date=March 8, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150905122015/http://www.newrepublic.com/article/politics/magazine/104898/john-roberts-supreme-court-aca|archive-date=September 5, 2015|df=mdy-all}}</ref><ref name="Coyle">{{cite book|last=Coyle|first=Marcia|url=https://archive.org/details/robertscourtstru0000coyl|title=The Roberts Court: the struggle for the constitution|publisher=Simon & Schuster|year=2013|isbn=9781451627527|location=New York|url-access=registration}}</ref><ref name="Scalia, Antonin 2008" /> He seems to want more consensus from the Court.<ref name="newrepublic" /> At the beginning of his tenure, Roberts's voting pattern closely aligned with [[Samuel Alito]]'s,<ref>{{cite news|title=Which Supreme Court Justices Vote Together Most and Least Often|newspaper=[[The New York Times]]|date=June 23, 2014 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/06/24/upshot/24up-scotus-agreement-rates.html?abt=0002&abg=0|url-status=live|access-date=May 21, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150701091302/http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/06/24/upshot/24up-scotus-agreement-rates.html?abt=0002&abg=0|archive-date=July 1, 2015|df=mdy-all|last1=Bowers |first1=Jeremy |last2=Liptak |first2=Adam |last3=Willis |first3=Derek }}</ref> but in recent years, his voting pattern has resembled [[Brett Kavanaugh]]'s, who is generally seen as far more moderate than Alito.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2019-04-03 |title=Empirical SCOTUS: Is Kavanaugh as conservative as expected? |url=https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/04/empirical-scotus-is-kavanaugh-as-conservative-as-expected/ |access-date=2023-06-12 |website=SCOTUSblog |language=en-US}}</ref>

After the confirmation of [[Amy Coney Barrett]], several commentators wrote that Roberts was no longer the leading justice. As the five other conservative justices could outvote the rest, he supposedly could no longer preside over a moderately conservative course while respecting precedent.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/law/2021/oct/11/us-supreme-court-john-roberts-politics|newspaper=[[The Guardian]]|last=Kirchgaessner|first=Stephanie|title=John Roberts is no longer the leader of his own court. Who, then, controls it?|date=October 11, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220628205743/https://www.theguardian.com/law/2021/oct/11/us-supreme-court-john-roberts-politics|archive-date=June 28, 2022}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/09/15/the-roberts-court-is-dying-heres-what-comes-next-511784|title=The Roberts Court is Dying. Here's What Comes Next.|last=Huq|first=Aziz|website=[[Politico]]|date=September 15, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220724033732/https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/09/15/the-roberts-court-is-dying-heres-what-comes-next-511784|archive-date=July 24, 2022}}</ref> This view was espoused again after [[Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization|the 2022 ''Dobbs'' decision]], which overturned ''[[Roe v. Wade|Roe]]'' and ''[[Planned Parenthood v. Casey|Casey]]''.<ref>{{Cite news|newspaper=[[New York Times]]|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220714071857/https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/24/us/abortion-supreme-court-roberts.html|archive-date=July 14, 2022|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/24/us/abortion-supreme-court-roberts.html|date=June 24, 2022|url-access=subscription|last=Liptak|first=Adam|title=June 24, 2022: The Day Chief Justice Roberts Lost His Court}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|title=Chief Justice John Roberts lost the Supreme Court and the defining case of his generation|url=https://edition.cnn.com/2022/06/26/politics/john-roberts-chief-justice-roe-dobbs-analysis/index.html|date=June 26, 2022|author-link=Joan Biskupic|last=Biskupic|first=Joan|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220719172734/https://edition.cnn.com/2022/06/26/politics/john-roberts-chief-justice-roe-dobbs-analysis/index.html|archive-date=July 19, 2022|website=[[CNN]]}}</ref>

=== Presidential power ===
On June 26, 2018, Roberts wrote the majority opinion in ''[[Trump v. Hawaii]]'', upholding the [[First presidency of Donald Trump|Trump administration's]] travel ban against seven nations, five of which had a [[Islam|Muslim]] majority.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/26/supreme-court-rules-in-trump-muslim-travel-ban-case.html|title=Supreme Court rules that Trump's travel ban is constitutional|last=Higgins|first=Tucker|date=2018-06-26|work=CNBC|access-date=2018-06-26}}</ref> In his opinion, Roberts concluded that 8 U. S. C. §1182(f) of the [[Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965|Immigration and Nationality Act]] gives the president broad authority to suspend the entry of non-citizens into the country and that [[Presidential Proclamation 9645]] did not exceed the limitations of said act.<ref name=HLR>{{Bluebook journal |first=|last=Note| title=The Supreme Court, 2017 Term — Leading Cases | volume=132 | journal=[[Harvard Law Review|Harv. L. Rev.]] | page=327 | url=https://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/327-336_Online.pdf| year=2018}}</ref> Additionally, Roberts wrote that the proclamation and its travel ban did not violate the [[Free Exercise Clause]], as Trump's statements in support of the ban could be justified on the basis of national security.<ref>{{Bluebook journal |first=|last=[[Josh Blackman]]| title=The Travel Bans| volume=2017-2018 | journal=[[Cato Supreme Court Review|Cato Sup. Ct. Rev.]] | page=29 | url=https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/supreme-court-review/2018/9/2018-cato-supreme-court-review-2.pdf| year=2018}}</ref><ref name="Scotusbloganalysis">{{Cite news|url=http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/06/opinion-analysis-divided-court-upholds-trump-travel-ban/|title=Opinion analysis: Divided court upholds Trump travel ban|date=2018-06-26|work=SCOTUSblog|access-date=2018-06-26|language=en-US}}</ref>

On July 9, 2020, Roberts wrote the majority opinion in ''[[Trump v. Vance]]'', regarding presidential immunity from criminal [[subpoenas]] relating to the president's personal information.<ref name="20200709NYTLiptak">{{cite news |last1=Liptak |first1=Adam |title=Supreme Court Rules Trump Cannot Block Release of Financial Records |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/09/us/trump-taxes-supreme-court.html |access-date=July 9, 2020 |work=The New York Times |date=July 9, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200709204530/https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/09/us/trump-taxes-supreme-court.html |archive-date=July 9, 2020}}</ref> In doing so, he rejected arguments relating to the investiture of [[absolute immunity]] in either the [[Supremacy Clause]] or [[Article Two of the United States Constitution|Article II]] of the Constitution or of presidential entitlement to a higher standard of issuance of a subpoena.<ref>{{cite web|last=Williams|first=Pete|date=July 9, 2020|title=Supreme Court rules Trump will have to fight to keep secret his taxes, financial records|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-rules-new-york-prosecutor-can-get-trump-s-n1232086|access-date=July 9, 2020|work=[[NBC News]]}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last1=Sheth|first1=Sonam|last2=Samuelsohn|first2=Darren|date=July 9, 2020|title=Supreme Court rules against Trump in 2 landmark cases about his taxes and financial records|publisher=[[Business Insider]]|url=https://www.businessinsider.com/supreme-court-ruling-trump-taxes-financial-records-2020-7?r=DE&IR=T|access-date=July 9, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200709220131/https://www.businessinsider.com/supreme-court-ruling-trump-taxes-financial-records-2020-7?r=DE&IR=T|archive-date=July 9, 2020}}</ref> Roberts emphasized this point, writing, "In our judicial system, 'the public has a right to every man's evidence'. Since the earliest days of the Republic, 'every man' has included the President of the United States."<ref name="wapost decision">{{cite news | url = https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-trump-tax-returns-financial-records/2020/07/09/8f274352-c1e2-11ea-9fdd-b7ac6b051dc8_story.html | title = Supreme Court says Manhattan prosecutor may pursue Trump's financial records, denies Congress access for now | first = Robert | last = Barnes | date = July 9, 2020 | access-date = July 9, 2020 | newspaper = [[The Washington Post]] | archive-date = February 15, 2021 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20210215154958/https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-trump-tax-returns-financial-records/2020/07/09/8f274352-c1e2-11ea-9fdd-b7ac6b051dc8_story.html | url-status = live}}</ref>

On July 9, 2020, Roberts wrote the majority opinion in ''[[Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP]]'', regarding the authority of [[United States congressional hearing#Subpoenas and depositions|congressional subpoenas]] relating to certain personal information relating to the president.<ref name="SCOTUSdocket">{{Cite web|title=Search - Supreme Court of the United States|url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19-715.html|access-date=2020-06-26|website=supremecourt.gov}}</ref> In his opinion, Roberts recognized the role of [[executive privilege]] in presidential decision-making but contended that executive privilege did not preclude blanket immunity from records requests, as protection caused by executive privilege "should not be transplanted root and branch to cases involving nonprivileged, private information, which by definition does not implicate sensitive Executive Branch deliberations."<ref name="20200709BloombergLawO'Brien">{{cite news |last1=O'Brien |first1=Timothy L. |title=Politics & Policy: The Supreme Court Puts Trump in His Place |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-07-09/trump-tax-returns-supreme-court-says-trump-is-not-above-the-law |access-date=July 9, 2020 |publisher=Bloomberg |date=July 9, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200709214121/https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-07-09/trump-tax-returns-supreme-court-says-trump-is-not-above-the-law |archive-date=July 9, 2020}}</ref>

On July 1, 2024, Roberts wrote the majority opinion in ''[[Trump v. United States (2024)|Trump v. United States]]'', writing that a president has absolute immunity for acts committed as president within their constitutional purview, presumptive immunity for official acts, and no immunity for unofficial acts.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-rules-trump-may-immunity-federal-election-inter-rcna149135|title=Supreme Court provides win to Trump, ruling he has immunity for many acts in election interference indictment|first=Lawrence|last=Hurley|publisher=[[NBC News]]|date=July 1, 2024|accessdate=July 1, 2024}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last=Dallas |first=Kelsey | url=https://www.deseret.com/politics/2024/07/01/supreme-court-punts-trumps-presidential-immunity-case-back-to-lower-court/ | title=Supreme Court punts Trump's presidential immunity case back to lower court | website=[[Deseret News]] | date=July 1, 2024 }}</ref> In his opinion, Roberts notes the importance of balancing fair and effective enforcement of criminal laws, alongside the effects criminal charges for a president's official acts may have in hampering a president's decision-making while in office.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Kruzel |first1=John |last2=Chung |first2=Andrew | url=https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-due-rule-trumps-immunity-bid-blockbuster-case-2024-07-01/ | title=US Supreme Court rules Trump has broad immunity from prosecution | website=[[Reuters]] | date=July 1, 2024 }}</ref> Presumptive immunity for such official acts is therefore necessary "to ensure that the President can undertake his constitutionally designated functions effectively, free from undue pressure or distortions", but such a presumption can be overcome provided an assertion of criminality that "pose[s] no dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the [[Executive Branch]]."<ref>{{cite web |last=Totenberg |first=Nina | url=https://www.npr.org/2024/07/01/nx-s1-5002157/supreme-court-trump-immunity | title=Supreme Court says Trump has absolute immunity for core acts only | website=[[NPR]] | date=July 1, 2024 }}</ref> In determining whether a potentially criminal action is official, neither a violation of law nor a president's motives in acting on said violation may be used in determining it as such.<ref>{{cite web |last=Howe |first=Amy | url=https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/07/justices-rule-trump-has-some-immunity-from-prosecution/ | title=Justices rule Trump has some immunity from prosecution | website=[[SCOTUSblog]] | date=July 1, 2024 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last=Millhiser |first=Ian | url=https://www.vox.com/scotus/358292/supreme-court-trump-immunity-dictatorship | title=The Supreme Court's disastrous Trump immunity decision, explained | website=[[Vox (website)|Vox]] | date=July 1, 2024 }}</ref> In addition, in charging a president for crimes relating to unofficial acts, evidence involving official acts may not be used, as such usage would threaten "to eviscerate the immunity [...] recognized. It would permit a prosecutor to do indirectly what he cannot do directly—invite the jury to examine acts for which a President is immune from prosecution to nonetheless prove his liability on any charge."<ref>{{cite web |last1=Quinn |first1=Melissa |last2=Legare |first2=Robert | url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-trump-immunity-decision-opinion/ | title=Supreme Court rules Trump has immunity for official acts in landmark case on presidential power | website=[[CBS News]] | date=July 2, 2024 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Marimow |first1=Ann |last2=Barrett |first2=Devlin | url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/07/01/trump-immunity-supreme-court-ruling/ | title=Justices give presidents immunity for official acts, further delaying Trump's trial | newspaper=[[The Washington Post]] | date=July 1, 2024 }}</ref>

=== Campaign finance ===
Roberts wrote the opinion in the 2007 decision ''[[FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc.]]'', which held that provisions of the [[Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002]] that limited political advertising were unconstitutional as applied to WRTL's issue ads preceding the election.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. |url=https://www.oyez.org/cases/2006/06-969 |access-date=July 4, 2024}}</ref> Roberts and Justice Alito declined to revisit the Court's 2003 decision in ''[[McConnell v. FEC]]'' at that time.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. v. FEC |url=https://www.fec.gov/legal-resources/court-cases/wisconsin-right-to-life-inc-v-fec/ |access-date=2024-07-04 |website=FEC.gov |language=en}}</ref>

In 2010, Roberts joined the opinion of the Court in ''[[Citizens United v. FEC]]'', which struck down provisions of [[Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act|BCRA]] that restricted unions, corporations, and profitable organizations from independent political spending and prohibited the broadcasting of political media funded by them within 60 days of general elections or 30 days of primary elections. Roberts wrote his own concurring opinion "to address the important principles of [[judicial restraint]] and ''[[stare decisis]]'' implicated in this case".<ref>{{Citation |last= |first= |title=Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm'n (Roberts, C. J., concurring) |date=January 21, 2010 |url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZC.html |access-date= |language=en-us}}</ref>

Roberts wrote the plurality opinion in the 2014 landmark [[campaign finance]] case ''[[McCutcheon v. FEC]]'', which held that "aggregate limits" on the combined amount a donor may give to various federal candidates or party committees violate the [[First Amendment]].<ref name="epps" /><ref>{{cite web| title = McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission| work = Oyez| access-date = 2018-08-05| url = https://www.oyez.org/cases/2013/12-536| archive-date = July 27, 2018| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20180727143544/https://www.oyez.org/cases/2013/12-536| url-status = live}}</ref>

In 2015, Roberts joined the liberal justices in ''[[Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar]]'', holding that the [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution|First Amendment]] does not prohibit states from barring judges and judicial candidates from personally soliciting funds for their election campaigns.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Williams-Yulee v. The Florida Bar |url=https://www.oyez.org/cases/2014/13-1499 |access-date=July 4, 2024}}</ref> For the majority, Roberts wrote that such a rule is narrowly tailored to serve the compelling interest of keeping the judiciary impartial.<ref name=":02">Andrew Lessig, [http://digest.syr.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Lessig-7-10.pdf "Williams-Yulee v. The Florida Bar: Judicial Elections as the Exception"], ''The DIGEST: National Italian American Bar Association Law Journal'', Apr. 24, 2016.</ref>

In 2021, the Supreme Court decided ''[[Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta]]'', which held that California's requirement that nonprofit organizations disclose the identity of their donors to the state's [[Attorney General of California|Attorney General]] as a precondition of soliciting donations in the state violates the [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution|First Amendment]]. For the majority, Roberts wrote, "California casts a dragnet for sensitive donor information from tens of thousands of charities each year, even though that information will become relevant in only a small number of cases involving filed complaints."<ref>{{Cite web |last=Stracqualursi |first=Ariane de Vogue,Fredreka Schouten,Veronica |date=2021-07-01 |title=Supreme Court invalidates California's donor disclosure requirement {{!}} CNN Politics |url=https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/01/politics/california-charitable-contributions-dark-money-supreme-court/index.html |access-date=2024-07-04 |website=CNN |language=en}}</ref> It therefore does not serve a narrowly tailored government interest and thus is invalid.

===Fourth Amendment===
Roberts wrote his first dissent in ''[[Georgia v. Randolph]]'' (2006). The majority's decision prohibited police from searching a home if both occupants are present, one objects, and the other consents. Roberts criticized the decision as inconsistent with prior [[case law]] and for partly basing its reasoning on its perception of social custom. He said the social expectation test was flawed because the Fourth Amendment protects a legitimate expectation of privacy, not social expectations.<ref>{{cite web|title=Third Party Consent Searches After Georgia v. Randolph: Dueling Approaches to the Dueling Roommates|author=Renee E. Williams|year=2008|page=950|url=http://www.bu.edu/law/central/jd/organizations/journals/bulr/documents/WILLIAMS.pdf|publisher=Bu.edu|access-date=May 21, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150924043751/http://www.bu.edu/law/central/jd/organizations/journals/bulr/documents/WILLIAMS.pdf|archive-date=September 24, 2015|url-status=dead|df=mdy-all}}</ref>

In ''[[Utah v. Strieff]]'' (2016), Roberts joined the five-justice majority in ruling that a person with an outstanding [[arrest warrant|warrant]] may be arrested and searched and that any evidence discovered in that search is admissible in court; the majority held that this remains true even when police act unlawfully by stopping a person without [[reasonable suspicion]], before learning of the existence of the outstanding warrant.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-1373_83i7.pdf|title=Utah v. Strieff|website=supremecourt.gov|date=June 20, 2016|access-date=June 30, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180701030939/https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-1373_83i7.pdf|archive-date=July 1, 2018|url-status=live|df=mdy-all}}</ref>

In ''[[Carpenter v. United States]]'' (2018), a landmark decision involving privacy of cellular phone data, Roberts wrote the majority opinion in a 5–4 ruling that searches of cellular phone data generally require a warrant.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-402_h315.pdf |title=CARPENTER v. UNITED STATES |date=2017 |website=supremecourt.gov |access-date=July 9, 2019 |archive-date=June 22, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180622141852/https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-402_h315.pdf |url-status=live}}</ref>

=== Abortion ===
In ''[[Gonzales v. Carhart]]'' (2007), Roberts voted with the majority to uphold the [[Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act]]. Kennedy, writing for a five-justice majority, distinguished ''[[Stenberg v. Carhart]]'', and concluded that the Court's previous decision in ''[[Planned Parenthood v. Casey]]'' did not prevent Congress from banning the procedure. The decision left the door open for future [[as-applied challenge]]s, and did not address the broader question of whether Congress had the authority to pass the law.<ref>{{cite web |title=Justice Thomas wrote separately to emphasize this: "whether the Act constitutes a permissible exercise of Congress' power under the Commerce Clause is not before the Court |url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-380.ZC.html |publisher=law.cornell.edu |access-date=May 21, 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150414013714/https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-380.ZC.html |archive-date=April 14, 2015 |url-status=live |df=mdy-all }}</ref> Thomas filed a concurring opinion contending that ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'' and ''Casey'' should be reversed; Roberts did not join that opinion.

In 2018, Roberts and Kavanaugh joined four more liberal justices in declining to hear a case brought by Louisiana and Kansas to deny [[Medicaid]] funding to Planned Parenthood,<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/10/supreme-court-hamstrings-states-efforts-to-defund-planned-parenthood.html|title=Supreme Court hamstrings states' efforts to defund Planned Parenthood|last=Higgins|first=Tucker|date=2018-12-10|website=cnbc.com|access-date=2018-12-10|archive-date=February 14, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210214231408/https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/10/supreme-court-hamstrings-states-efforts-to-defund-planned-parenthood.html|url-status=live}}</ref> thereby letting stand lower court rulings in Planned Parenthood's favor.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/10/politics/supreme-court-planned-parenthood-abortion/index.html|title=Supreme Court sides with Planned Parenthood in funding fight|last=de Vogue|first=Ariane|date=December 10, 2018|website=cnn.com|access-date=December 10, 2018|archive-date=December 10, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181210204832/https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/10/politics/supreme-court-planned-parenthood-abortion/index.html|url-status=live}}</ref> Roberts also joined with liberal justices in 5–4 decisions temporarily blocking a Louisiana [[Types of abortion restrictions in the United States|abortion restriction]] (2019)<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.reuters.tv/v/PgnL/2019/02/08/u-s-supreme-court-blocks-louisiana-abortion-law|title=U.S. Supreme Court blocks Louisiana abortion law|website=[[Reuters]] TV|access-date=2019-02-09|archive-date=February 10, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190210044604/https://www.reuters.tv/v/PgnL/2019/02/08/u-s-supreme-court-blocks-louisiana-abortion-law|url-status=live}}</ref> and later striking down that law (''[[June Medical Services, LLC v. Russo]]'' (2020)).<ref>{{Cite news|title=Supreme Court Hands Abortion-Rights Advocates A Victory In Louisiana Case|url=https://www.npr.org/2020/06/29/874458692/supreme-court-hands-abortion-rights-a-victory-in-louisiana-case|access-date=2020-06-29|website=NPR.org|language=en|archive-date=February 14, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210214231841/https://www.npr.org/2020/06/29/874458692/supreme-court-hands-abortion-rights-a-victory-in-louisiana-case|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title=Supreme Court strikes, in 5–4 ruling, down restrictive Louisiana abortion law|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-strikes-down-restrictive-louisiana-abortion-law-n1231392|access-date=2020-06-29|website=[[NBC News]]|date=June 29, 2020 |language=en|archive-date=February 14, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210214231919/https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-strikes-down-restrictive-louisiana-abortion-law-n1231392|url-status=live}}</ref> The law at issue in ''June'' was similar to one the court struck down in ''[[Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt]]'' (2016), which Roberts had voted to uphold;<ref name="nytimes decision">{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/07/us/politics/louisiana-abortion-law-supreme-court.html|title=Supreme Court Blocks Louisiana Abortion Law|last=Liptak|first=Adam|date=2019-02-07|work=[[The New York Times]]|access-date=2019-02-09|language=en-US|issn=0362-4331|archive-date=February 9, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190209232332/https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/07/us/politics/louisiana-abortion-law-supreme-court.html|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.npr.org/2019/02/07/690319510/supreme-court-stops-louisiana-abortion-law-from-being-implemented|title=Supreme Court Stops Louisiana Abortion Law From Being Implemented|website=NPR.org|date=February 7, 2019|language=en|access-date=2019-02-09|archive-date=February 14, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210214231412/https://www.npr.org/2019/02/07/690319510/supreme-court-stops-louisiana-abortion-law-from-being-implemented|url-status=live|last1=Totenberg|first1=Nina|last2=Montanaro|first2=Domenico|last3=Gonzales|first3=Richard|last4=Campbell|first4=Barbara}}</ref> in his ''June'' opinion, Roberts wrote that while he believed ''Whole Woman's Health'' was wrongly decided he was joining the majority in ''June'' out of respect for ''[[stare decisis]]''.<ref name="nytimes decision" /> It was the first time in his 15 years on the Supreme Court that Roberts had cast a vote to invalidate a law that regulated abortion.<ref>{{Cite web|title=How Brett Kavanaugh tried to sidestep abortion and Trump financial docs cases|url=https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/29/politics/brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court-abortion-trump-documents/index.html|access-date=2020-07-29|website=[[CNN]]|date=July 29, 2020 |archive-date=July 29, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200729150727/https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/29/politics/brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court-abortion-trump-documents/index.html|url-status=live}}</ref> In September 2021, the Supreme Court declined an emergency petition to temporarily block enforcement of the [[Texas Heartbeat Act]], which bans abortion after six weeks of pregnancy except to save the mother's life. Roberts, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan were in the minority.<ref>{{Cite news|last1=Liptak|first1=Adam|last2=Goodman|first2=J. David|last3=Tavernise|first3=Sabrina|date=2021-09-01|title=Supreme Court, Breaking Silence, Won't Block Texas Abortion Law|language=en-US|work=[[The New York Times]]|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/01/us/supreme-court-texas-abortion.html|access-date=2021-09-15|issn=0362-4331|archive-date=September 1, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210901165835/https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/01/us/supreme-court-texas-abortion.html|url-status=live}}</ref> In 2022, Roberts declined to join the majority opinion in ''[[Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization]]'', which overturned ''Roe v. Wade''. He wrote a concurring opinion supporting only the decision to uphold the Mississippi abortion statute, stating that the right to an abortion should "extend far enough to ensure a reasonable opportunity to choose, but need not extend any further." Roberts also declined to join the dissenting opinion by Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan.

=== Capital punishment ===
On November 4, 2016, Roberts was the deciding vote in a 5–3 decision to stay an execution.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.cnn.com/2016/11/04/politics/justice-roberts-thomas-death-penalty/index.html|title=Why John Roberts blocked an execution|first=Ariane|last=de Vogue|website=[[CNN]]|access-date=2019-02-21|archive-date=February 21, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190221112356/https://www.cnn.com/2016/11/04/politics/justice-roberts-thomas-death-penalty/index.html|url-status=live}}</ref> On February 7, 2019, he was part of the majority in a 5–4 decision rejecting a Muslim inmate's request to delay execution in order to have an imam present with him during the execution.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-alabama-execution-idUSKCN1PX07C|title=Muslim man executed after U.S. Supreme Court denies request for imam's presence|date=2019-02-08|work=[[Reuters]]|access-date=2019-02-21|language=en|archive-date=February 14, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210214231433/https://www.reuters.com/article/us-alabama-execution-idUSKCN1PX07C|url-status=live}}</ref> Also in February 2019, Roberts sided with Kavanaugh and the court's four liberal justices in a 6–3 decision to block the execution of a man with an "intellectual disability" in Texas.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/430556-supreme-court-tosses-death-sentence-for-texas-man|title=Supreme Court tosses death sentence for Texas man|last=Rowland|first=Geoffrey|date=2019-02-19|website=[[The Hill (newspaper)|The Hill]]|language=en|access-date=2019-02-21|archive-date=February 14, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210214231443/https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/430556-supreme-court-tosses-death-sentence-for-texas-man|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/02/19/supreme-court-bobby-james-moore-death-penalty-case/2914569002/|title=Divided Supreme Court blocks Texas from executing intellectually disabled man, citing 'lay stereotypes'|website=[[USA Today]]|language=en|access-date=2019-02-21|archive-date=February 14, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210214231415/https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/02/19/supreme-court-bobby-james-moore-death-penalty-case/2914569002/|url-status=live}}</ref>

=== Affirmative action ===
Roberts opposes the use of race in assigning students to particular schools, including for purposes such as maintaining integrated schools.<ref name="toob">{{cite book|last=Toobin|first=Jeffrey|author-link=Jeffrey Toobin|title=The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court|publisher=Doubleday|year=2008|location=New York|page=[https://archive.org/details/nineinsidesecret00toob/page/389 389]|isbn=978-0-385-51640-2|title-link=The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court}}</ref> He sees such plans as discrimination in violation of the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause and ''[[Brown v. Board of Education]]''.<ref name="toob"/><ref name="npr.org">{{cite web |author=Day to Day |url=https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11507805 |title=Justices Reject Race as Factor in School Placement |publisher=[[NPR]]|date=June 28, 2007 |access-date=August 26, 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110219212740/http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11507805 |archive-date=February 19, 2011 |url-status=live |df=mdy-all }}</ref> In ''[[Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1]]'', the Court considered two voluntarily adopted school district plans that relied on race to determine which schools certain children may attend. The Court had held in ''Brown'' that "racial discrimination in public education is unconstitutional,"<ref>{{cite web|title=Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka|url=http://supreme.justia.com/us/349/294/case.html#298|publisher=Supreme.justia.com|quote=349 U.S. 294, 298 (1955) (''Brown II'')|access-date=May 21, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110904001708/http://supreme.justia.com/us/349/294/case.html#298|archive-date=September 4, 2011|url-status=live|df=mdy-all}}</ref> and later, that "racial classifications, imposed by whatever federal, state, or local governmental actor, ... are constitutional only if they are narrowly tailored measures that further compelling governmental interests,"<ref>[[Adarand Constructors v. Pena]], [http://supreme.justia.com/us/515/200/case.html 515 U.S. 200] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100121042438/http://supreme.justia.com/us/515/200/case.html |date=January 21, 2010 }}, 227 (1995).</ref> and that this "[n]arrow tailoring ... require[s] serious, good faith consideration of workable race-neutral alternatives."<ref>[[Grutter v. Bollinger]], [http://supreme.justia.com/us/539/306/case.html 539 U.S. 306] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101108175710/http://supreme.justia.com/us/539/306/case.html |date=November 8, 2010 }}, 339 (2003).</ref> Roberts cited these cases in writing for the ''Parents Involved'' majority, concluding that the school districts had "failed to show that they considered methods other than explicit racial classifications to achieve their stated goals."<ref>''Parents Involved'', [https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-908.pdf slip op. at 16] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100531195839/http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-908.pdf |date=May 31, 2010 }}</ref> In a section of the opinion joined by four other justices, Roberts added that "[t]he way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."
[[File:John Roberts 2021.jpg|thumb|Roberts in 2021]]

On June 29, 2023, Roberts wrote the majority opinion in ''[[Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard]]'' and ''[[Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina]]'', which held that race-based affirmative action in both public and private universities violates the Equal Protection Clause.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2023-06-29 |title=Supreme Court bans colleges from considering race in admissions |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/supreme-court-strike-affirmative-action-university-b2366556.html |access-date=2023-06-29 |website=[[The Independent]]|language=en}}</ref>

=== Free speech ===
Roberts wrote the majority opinion in the 2007 student free speech case ''[[Morse v. Frederick]]'', ruling that a student in a public school-sponsored activity does not have the right to advocate [[Recreational drug use|drug use]] on the basis that the right to free speech does not invariably prevent the exercise of school discipline.<ref name="multiple2">{{cite news|last=Economist.com|title=The Supreme Court says no to race discrimination in schools|newspaper=[[The Economist]]|date=June 28, 2007|url=https://www.economist.com/daily/news/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9424122&top_story=1|access-date=December 6, 2008|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081205080655/http://www.economist.com/daily/news/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9424122&top_story=1|archive-date=December 5, 2008|url-status=live|df=mdy-all}}</ref>

On April 20, 2010, in ''[[United States v. Stevens]]'', the Court struck down an [[animal cruelty]] law. Writing for an 8–1 majority, Roberts found that a federal statute criminalizing the commercial production, sale, or possession of depictions of cruelty to animals was an unconstitutional abridgment of the First Amendment right to freedom of speech. The Court held that the statute was substantially overbroad; for example, it could allow prosecutions for selling photos of out-of-season hunting.<ref>Tribune Wire Services. [http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/unleashed/2010/04/supreme-court-animal-videos.html "Supreme court crushes law against animal cruelty videos and photos"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100701171110/http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/unleashed/2010/04/supreme-court-animal-videos.html |date=July 1, 2010 }}, ''[[Los Angeles Times]]'', April 20, 2010.</ref>

On March 2, 2011, Roberts wrote the majority opinion in ''[[Snyder v. Phelps]]'', holding that speech as a matter of public concern, even if considered offense or outrageous, cannot be the basis of liability for a [[tort]] of emotional stress.<ref>{{cite web |last=Liptak |first=Adam | url=https://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/03/us/03scotus.html | title=Justices Rule for Protestors at Military Funerals | website=[[The New York Times]] | date=March 2, 2011 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/supreme-court-rules-picketing-of-funerals-is-protected-speech | title=Supreme Court Rules 8-1 in Favor of Westboro Funeral Protesters | website=[[PBS Newshour]] | date=March 2, 2011 }}</ref> In doing so, he wrote that comments Phelps made constituted "matters of public import" as they related to societal issues and that Snyder was not determined to be a "[[Wiktionary:captive audience|captive audience]]" as determined by the captive audience doctrine.<ref>{{cite magazine |last=Gregory |first=Sean | url=https://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2056613,00.html | title=Why the Supreme Court Ruled for Westboro Nation | magazine=[[Time (magazine)|Time]] | date=March 3, 2011 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last=Moraleda |first=Lucy | url=https://confluence.gallatin.nyu.edu/sections/research/snyder-v-phelps-how-free-is-speech | title=Snyder v. Phelps: How Free Is Speech? | website=[[Gallatin School of Individualized Study]] | date=December 5, 2022 }}</ref> In his conclusion, Roberts wrote, "On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker. As a nation, we have chosen a different course—to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate."<ref>{{cite web |last=Denniston |first=Lyle | url=https://www.scotusblog.com/2011/03/commentary-privacy-in-different-settings/ | title=Commentary: Privacy, in different settings | website=[[SCOTUSblog]] | date=March 2, 2011 }}</ref>

=== Health care reform ===
On June 28, 2012, Roberts wrote the majority opinion in ''[[National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius]]'', which upheld a key component of the [[Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act]] by a 5–4 vote. The Court found that although the Act's "individual mandate" component could not be upheld under the [[Commerce Clause]], the mandate could be construed as a tax and was therefore valid under Congress's authority to "lay and collect taxes."<ref name=politico>{{cite news|last=Haberkorn|first=Jennifer|title=Health care ruling: Individual mandate upheld by Supreme Court|url=https://www.politico.com/story/2012/06/supreme-court-upholds-individual-mandate-077935|access-date=June 28, 2012|newspaper=[[Politico]]|date=June 28, 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120628204932/http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77935.html|archive-date=June 28, 2012|url-status=live|df=mdy-all}}</ref><ref name=cushman>{{cite news|last=Cushman|first=John|title=Supreme Court Lets Health Law Largely Stand|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/29/us/supreme-court-lets-health-law-largely-stand.html|access-date=June 28, 2012|newspaper=[[The New York Times]]|date=June 28, 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120628152412/http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/29/us/supreme-court-lets-health-law-largely-stand.html|archive-date=June 28, 2012|url-status=live|df=mdy-all}}</ref> At the same time, the Court overturned a portion of the law related to the expansion of [[Medicaid]]; Roberts wrote that "Congress is not free ... to penalize states that choose not to participate in that new program by taking away their existing Medicaid funding."<ref name=cushman/> Sources within the Supreme Court said that Roberts switched his vote regarding the individual mandate sometime after an initial vote<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.politico.com/story/2012/06/new-scotus-parlor-game-did-roberts-flip-078048 |title=New SCOTUS parlor game: Did Roberts flip? |date=June 30, 2012 |publisher=[[Politico]] |access-date=July 3, 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120702223834/http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/78048.html |archive-date=July 2, 2012 |url-status=live |df=mdy-all }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=Roberts switched views to uphold health care law |last=Crawford |first=Jan |author-link=Jan Crawford |url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/roberts-switched-views-to-uphold-health-care-law/ |date=July 1, 2012 |access-date=July 1, 2012 |publisher=[[CBS News]]|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120701184530/http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57464549/roberts-switched-views-to-uphold-health-care-law/ |archive-date=July 1, 2012 |url-status=live |df=mdy-all }}</ref> and that he largely wrote both the majority and minority opinions.<ref name=Salon-Campos>{{cite web|last1=Campos|first1=Paul|title=Roberts wrote both Obamacare opinions|url=http://www.salon.com/2012/07/03/roberts_wrote_both_obamacare_opinions/|website=[[Salon.com|Salon]]|date=July 3, 2012|access-date=April 30, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150502135248/http://www.salon.com/2012/07/03/roberts_wrote_both_obamacare_opinions/|archive-date=May 2, 2015|url-status=live|df=mdy-all}}</ref> This extremely unusual circumstance has also been used to explain why the minority opinion was unsigned, itself a rare phenomenon at the Supreme Court.<ref name=Salon-Campos />

=== LGBT rights ===
In ''[[Hollingsworth v. Perry]]'' (2013), Roberts wrote the 5–4 majority opinion holding that petitioners, appealing a lower court ruling that [[California Proposition 8 (2008)|California's Proposition 8]] was unconstitutional, lacked standing to sue, with the result that same-sex marriages resumed in California.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.cnn.com/2013/06/26/politics/scotus-prop-8/index.html|title=Supreme Court dismisses California's Proposition 8 appeal – CNNPolitics|last=Mears|first=Bill|work=[[CNN]]|access-date=2018-10-06|archive-date=July 6, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180706022706/https://www.cnn.com/2013/06/26/politics/scotus-prop-8/index.html|url-status=live}}</ref> Roberts dissented in ''[[United States v. Windsor]]'', in which a 5–4 majority ruled that key parts of the [[Defense of Marriage Act]] were unconstitutional.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/26/supreme-court-doma-prop-8-rulings|title=Doma defeated on historic day for gay rights in US|last1=Roberts|first1=Dan|last2=Holpuch|first2=Amanda|date=2013-06-27|website=[[The Guardian]]|language=en|access-date=2018-10-06|archive-date=March 1, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190301061707/https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/26/supreme-court-doma-prop-8-rulings|url-status=live}}</ref> The court found that the federal government must recognize same-sex marriages that certain states have approved. Roberts dissented in ''[[Obergefell v. Hodges]]'', in which Kennedy wrote for the majority, again 5–4, that same-sex couples had a right to marry.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/06/26/417717613/supreme-court-rules-all-states-must-allow-same-sex-marriages|title=Supreme Court Declares Same-Sex Marriage Legal In All 50 States|work=NPR.org|access-date=2018-10-06|language=en|archive-date=July 9, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150709112235/http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/06/26/417717613/supreme-court-rules-all-states-must-allow-same-sex-marriages|url-status=live}}</ref> In ''[[Pavan v. Smith]]'', the Supreme Court "summarily overruled" the Arkansas Supreme Court's decision that the state does not have to list same-sex spouses on birth certificates; Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissented, but Roberts joined the majority.<ref>{{cite news |first1=Robert |last1=Barnes |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/a-supreme-court-mystery-has-roberts-embraced-same-sex-marriage-ruling/2017/07/16/33cd522a-68d1-11e7-8eb5-cbccc2e7bfbf_story.html |title=A Supreme Court mystery: Has Roberts embraced same-sex marriage ruling? |newspaper=[[The Washington Post]]|date=July 16, 2017 |language=en |access-date=October 6, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210214231957/https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/a-supreme-court-mystery-has-roberts-embraced-same-sex-marriage-ruling/2017/07/16/33cd522a-68d1-11e7-8eb5-cbccc2e7bfbf_story.html |archive-date=February 14, 2021 |url-status=live}}</ref> In the cases of ''[[Bostock v. Clayton County]], [[Altitude Express, Inc. v. Zarda]],'' and ''[[R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission]]'' (2020), heard together, Roberts ruled with the 6–3 majority that businesses cannot discriminate against LGBT people in matters of employment.<ref>{{Cite web|date=2020-06-15|title=Justices rule LGBT people protected from job discrimination|url=https://apnews.com/ef3c19a79b65c060fd9e82b9dd87a1d9|access-date=2020-06-16|website=[[Associated Press|AP News]]|archive-date=February 14, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210214231843/https://apnews.com/ef3c19a79b65c060fd9e82b9dd87a1d9|url-status=live}}</ref> In October 2020, Roberts joined the justices in an "apparently unanimous" decision to reject an appeal from [[Kim Davis]], who refused to provide marriage licenses to same-sex couples.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Supreme Court rejects appeal from county clerk who wouldn't issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-rejects-appeal-county-clerk-who-wouldn-t-issue-n1242124|access-date=2020-10-05|website=[[NBC News]]|date=October 5, 2020 |language=en|archive-date=February 14, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210214231434/https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-rejects-appeal-county-clerk-who-wouldn-t-issue-n1242124|url-status=live}}</ref>

In ''[[Fulton v. City of Philadelphia]]'' (2021), Roberts joined a unanimous decision in favor of a Catholic adoption agency that the City of Philadelphia had denied a contract for its policy not to adopt to same-sex couples; he was also part of the majority that declined to reconsider or overturn ''[[Employment Division v. Smith]]'', "an important precedent limiting First Amendment protections for religious practices."<ref>{{Cite news|last=Liptak|first=Adam|date=2021-06-17|title=Supreme Court Backs Catholic Agency in Case on Gay Rights and Foster Care|language=en-US|work=[[The New York Times]]|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/17/us/supreme-court-gay-rights-foster-care.html|access-date=2021-07-05|issn=0362-4331|archive-date=July 6, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210706112400/https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/17/us/supreme-court-gay-rights-foster-care.html|url-status=live}}</ref> Also in 2021, he was one of the six justices who declined to hear an appeal by a Washington State florist who refused service to a same-sex couple based on her religious beliefs against same-sex marriage; because four votes are required to hear a case, the lower court judgments against the florist remain in place.<ref>{{Cite web|author=Ariane de Vogue and Veronica Stracqualursi|title=Supreme Court rejects appeal from florist who wouldn't make arrangement for same-sex wedding|url=https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/02/politics/supreme-court-flower-shop-same-sex-wedding-case/index.html|access-date=2021-07-05|website=[[CNN]]|date=July 2, 2021 |archive-date=July 3, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210703163750/https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/02/politics/supreme-court-flower-shop-same-sex-wedding-case/index.html|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title=Gay couple wins case against florist after Supreme Court rejects appeal|url=https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/gay-couple-wins-case-florist-supreme-court-rejects/story?id=78631214|access-date=2021-07-05|website=[[ABC News (United States)|ABC News]]|language=en|archive-date=July 3, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210703153015/https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/gay-couple-wins-case-florist-supreme-court-rejects/story?id=78631214|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=Higgins|first=Tucker|date=2021-07-02|title=Supreme Court declines to decide whether religious flower shop owner can refuse same-sex weddings|url=https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/02/supreme-court-declines-to-say-whether-flower-shop-can-reject-same-sex-weddings.html|access-date=2021-07-05|website=[[CNBC]]|language=en|archive-date=July 2, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210702153841/https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/02/supreme-court-declines-to-say-whether-flower-shop-can-reject-same-sex-weddings.html|url-status=live}}</ref> In November 2021, Roberts voted with the majority in a 6–3 decision to reject an appeal from [[Mercy San Juan Medical Center]], a hospital affiliated with the Roman Catholic Church, which had sought to deny a [[hysterectomy]] to a transgender patient on religious grounds.<ref>{{Cite web|date=2021-11-01|title=Supreme Court won't hear case involving transgender rights|url=https://apnews.com/article/us-supreme-court-business-religion-california-discrimination-b7ecdd5c56deec5be7782843b21b6e34|access-date=2021-11-02|website=[[Associated Press|AP News]]|language=en|archive-date=November 3, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211103103329/https://apnews.com/article/us-supreme-court-business-religion-california-discrimination-b7ecdd5c56deec5be7782843b21b6e34|url-status=live}}</ref> Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissented; the vote to reject the appeal left in place a lower court ruling in the patient's favor.<ref>{{Cite news|last1=Chung|first1=Andrew|last2=Hurley|first2=Lawrence|date=2021-11-02|title=U.S. Supreme Court spurns Catholic hospital appeal over transgender patient|language=en|work=[[Reuters]]|url=https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-supreme-court-spurns-catholic-hospital-appeal-over-transgender-patient-2021-11-01/|access-date=2021-11-02|archive-date=November 2, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211102194853/http://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-supreme-court-spurns-catholic-hospital-appeal-over-transgender-patient-2021-11-01/|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=Press {{!}}|first=Associated|date=2021-11-02|title=Supreme Court turns down Northern California Catholic hospital appeal over transgender patient|url=https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/11/02/supreme-court-wont-hear-case-involving-transgender-rights|access-date=2021-11-02|website=The Mercury News|language=en-US|archive-date=November 2, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211102200356/https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/11/02/supreme-court-wont-hear-case-involving-transgender-rights/|url-status=live}}</ref>

=== Voting Rights Act ===
As chief justice, Roberts has been in the majority in decisions that struck down voting rights protections provided by the [[Voting Rights Act of 1965|Voting Rights Act]].<ref>{{Cite web|last=Berman|first=Ari|title=Inside John Roberts' Decades-Long Crusade Against the Voting Rights Act|url=https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/john-roberts-voting-rights-act-121222/|access-date=2021-07-01|website=[[Politico]]|date=August 10, 2015 |language=en|archive-date=July 1, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210701174209/https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/john-roberts-voting-rights-act-121222/|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=Millhiser|first=Ian|date=2020-09-18|title=Chief Justice Roberts's lifelong crusade against voting rights, explained|url=https://www.vox.com/21211880/supreme-court-chief-justice-john-roberts-voting-rights-act-election-2020|access-date=2021-07-01|website=[[Vox (website)|Vox]]|language=en|archive-date=November 1, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201101045952/https://www.vox.com/21211880/supreme-court-chief-justice-john-roberts-voting-rights-act-election-2020|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|title=High Noon For The Future Of The Voting Rights Act At The Supreme Court|url=https://www.npr.org/2021/03/02/970729426/high-noon-for-the-future-of-the-voting-rights-act-at-the-supreme-court|access-date=2021-07-01|website=NPR.org|language=en|archive-date=July 9, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210709182658/https://www.npr.org/2021/03/02/970729426/high-noon-for-the-future-of-the-voting-rights-act-at-the-supreme-court|url-status=live}}</ref> In ''[[Shelby County v. Holder]]'' (2013), he voted with the majority to strike down requirements that states and localities with a history of racially motivated voter suppression obtain federal preclearance before making any changes to voting laws. Research shows that preclearance led to increases in minority congressional representation and minority turnout.<ref name=":9">{{Cite journal|last=Ang|first=Desmond|date=2019|title=Do 40-Year-Old Facts Still Matter? Long-Run Effects of Federal Oversight under the Voting Rights Act|journal=American Economic Journal: Applied Economics|language=en|volume=11|issue=3|pages=1–53|doi=10.1257/app.20170572|issn=1945-7782|doi-access=free}}</ref><ref name=":10">{{Cite journal|last1=Schuit|first1=Sophie|last2=Rogowski|first2=Jon C.|date=2017|title=Race, Representation, and the Voting Rights Act|journal=American Journal of Political Science|language=en|volume=61|issue=3|pages=513–526|doi=10.1111/ajps.12284|issn=1540-5907}}</ref> Five years after the ruling, nearly 1,000 U.S. polling places had closed, many of them in predominantly African-American counties. There were also cuts to early voting, purges of voter rolls, and impositions of strict voter ID laws.<ref name=":5">{{Cite web|date=2018|title=Discriminatory voter laws have surged in last 5 years, federal commission finds|url=https://edition.cnn.com/2018/09/12/politics/voting-rights-federal-commission-election/index.html|website=[[CNN]]|access-date=July 1, 2021|archive-date=August 16, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210816030953/https://edition.cnn.com/2018/09/12/politics/voting-rights-federal-commission-election/index.html|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name=":6">{{Cite web|date=2018|title=Assessment of Minority Voting Rights Access|url=https://www.usccr.gov/pubs/2018/Minority_Voting_Access_2018.pdf|website=U.S. Commission on Civil Rights|access-date=July 1, 2021|archive-date=June 23, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210623211804/https://www.usccr.gov/pubs/2018/Minority_Voting_Access_2018.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref> A 2020 study found that jurisdictions that had previously been covered by preclearance substantially increased their voter registration purges after ''Shelby''.<ref name="journals.sagepub.com">{{Cite journal|last1=Feder|first1=Catalina|last2=Miller|first2=Michael G.|date=June 1, 2020|title=Voter Purges After Shelby: Part of Special Symposium on Election Sciences|url=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1532673X20916426|journal=American Politics Research|volume=48|issue=6|pages=687–692|language=en-US|doi=10.1177/1532673x20916426|issn=1532-673X|archive-url=https://archive.today/20210105160727/https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1532673X20916426|archive-date=January 5, 2021|s2cid=221131969|url-access=subscription}}</ref>

In 2023, Roberts and Kavanaugh joined the liberal justices in ''[[Allen v. Milligan]]'', a 5–4 decision holding that [[Alabama]]'s congressional redistricting plan violated Section 2 of the VRA. Writing for the majority, Roberts ruled that Alabama must draw an additional majority-minority district. Writing for himself and the three liberal justices, Roberts also wrote that "[t]he contention that mapmakers must be entirely 'blind' to race has no footing in our §2 case law."<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1086_1co6.pdf|title=Allen v. Milligan, No. 21–1086}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Crayton |first=Kareem |date=June 14, 2023 |title=Chief Justice Roberts Delivers a Surprise on the Voting Rights Act |url=https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/chief-justice-roberts-delivers-surprise-voting-rights-act |access-date=2024-12-15 |language=en |publisher=[[Brennan Center for Justice]]}}</ref><ref>{{Cite magazine |last=Sorkin |first=Amy Davidson |date=2023-06-09 |title=The Supreme Court's Surprise Defense of the Voting Rights Act |url=https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-supreme-courts-surprise-defense-of-the-voting-rights-act |access-date=2024-12-15 |magazine=The New Yorker |language=en-US |issn=0028-792X}}</ref>

== Awards and honors ==
In 2007, Roberts received an [[honorary degree]] from the [[College of the Holy Cross]]. He also delivered a [[commencement address]] at Holy Cross that year.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Newsroom {{!}} John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice of the United States, to Deliver Commencement Address |url=https://news.holycross.edu/blog/2007/04/17/john-g-roberts-jr-chief-justice-of-the-united-states-to-deliver-commencement-address/ |access-date=2023-05-14 |website=news.holycross.edu}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.businessinsider.com/john-roberts-bio-photo-chief-justice-supreme-court-2020-1|title=The life of John Roberts Jr., the Supreme Court's youngest chief justice in 200 years|first=James|last=Pasley|website=Business Insider|date=January 30, 2020}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.telegram.com/story/news/local/north/2007/05/27/chief-justice-s-wife-juggles/52888827007/|title=Chief justice's wife juggles law, 2 children|first=Bronislaus |last=Kush |website=Worcester Telegram & Gazette|date=May 27, 2007}}</ref> In 2023, Roberts was awarded the [[Henry J. Friendly Medal]] of the [[American Law Institute]].<ref>{{Cite news |last=Barnes |first=Robert |date=2023-05-24 |title=Roberts says Supreme Court will address ethics issues |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/05/23/supreme-court-ethics-roberts/ |access-date=2024-03-28 |newspaper=[[The Washington Post]] |language=en-US |issn=0190-8286}}</ref>

== Personal life ==
Roberts and his wife, Jane Sullivan, were married on July 27, 1996,<ref>{{cite news |date=July 28, 1996 |title=Weddings: Jane Sullivan, John Roberts Jr. |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1996/07/28/style/weddings-jane-sullivan-john-roberts-jr.html |access-date=February 21, 2022 |work=[[The New York Times]]}}</ref> in the [[Cathedral of St. Matthew the Apostle (Washington, D.C.)|Cathedral of St. Matthew the Apostle]].{{Sfn|Biskupic|2019|pp=116}} [[J. Michael Luttig]] was a groomsman at their wedding.{{Sfn|Toobin|2007|p=273}} Sullivan is a lawyer who met Roberts in New York. After graduating from the [[College of the Holy Cross]], she received a master's degree in mathematics from [[Brown University]] and a [[Juris Doctor]] degree from the [[Georgetown University Law Center]].{{Sfn|Biskupic|2019|pp=114–115}} She became a prominent legal recruiter at the firms of Major, Lindsey & Africa and Mlegal.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Lovelace |first1=Ryan |title=Jane Sullivan Roberts, Wife of Chief Justice, Opens DC Outpost for Recruiter MLegal |date=March 5, 2019 |url=https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/2019/03/05/jane-sullivan-roberts-wife-of-chief-justice-opens-dc-outpost-for-recruiter-mlegal/?slreturn=20190609181555 |website=National Law Journal |access-date=July 9, 2019 |language=en |archive-date=August 2, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200802211138/https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/2019/03/05/jane-sullivan-roberts-wife-of-chief-justice-opens-dc-outpost-for-recruiter-mlegal/?slreturn=20190609181555 |url-status=live}}</ref> Like [[Clarence Thomas]], Sullivan has been on Holy Cross's [[board of trustees]]. John and Jane Roberts live in [[Chevy Chase, Maryland]].<ref name=diversity>{{cite news | url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/04/chevy-chase-maryland-super-rich-town-diversity | title=Chevy Chase, Maryland: the super-rich town that has it all – except diversity | first=Rupert | last=Neate | newspaper=[[The Guardian]] | date=December 4, 2015}}</ref><ref name="nytimes"/> They have two adopted children.{{Sfn|Friedman|Israel|2013|p=473}}

During the late 1990s, while working for Hogan & Hartson, Roberts served as a member of the steering committee of the Washington, D.C., chapter of the conservative [[Federalist Society]], although he has said he has little recollection of any involvement.<ref>{{cite news |last=Lane |first=Charles |author-link=Charles Lane (journalist) |date=July 25, 2005 |title=Roberts Listed in Federalist Society '97–98 Directory |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/24/AR2005072401201.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081011080214/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/24/AR2005072401201.html |archive-date=October 11, 2008 |access-date=December 5, 2008 |newspaper=[[The Washington Post]] |df=mdy-all}}</ref>

=== Health ===
In 2007, Roberts had a [[seizure]] at his vacation home in [[St. George, Maine]],<ref name="tumbles">{{cite news|last=Mears|first=Bill|author2=Jeane Meserve|title=Chief justice tumbles after seizure|publisher=[[CNN]]|date=July 31, 2007|url=http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/07/30/roberts.fall/index.html|access-date=December 5, 2008|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081212061906/http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/07/30/roberts.fall/index.html|archive-date=December 12, 2008|url-status=live|df=mdy-all}}</ref><ref name="suffers seizure">{{cite news|last=Sherman|first=Mark|title=Chief Justice Roberts Suffers Seizures|newspaper=[[The Washington Post]]|date=July 31, 2007|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/30/AR2007073001119.html|access-date=December 5, 2008|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121112035304/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/30/AR2007073001119.html|archive-date=November 12, 2012|url-status=live|df=mdy-all}}</ref> and stayed overnight at a hospital in [[Rockport, Maine]];<ref name="MaineToday">{{cite web|last=''Maine Today'' staff|title=Chief Justice John Roberts hospitalized in Maine|publisher=Maine Today|date=July 30, 2007 |url=http://news.mainetoday.com/updates/014236.html|access-date=December 5, 2008|url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090201172207/http://news.mainetoday.com/updates/014236.html|archive-date=February 1, 2009}}</ref> doctors found no identifiable cause.<ref name="tumbles"/><ref name="suffers seizure"/><ref name="seizure remains">{{cite news|last=McCaleb|first=Ian|agency=Associated Press|title=President Bush Phones Chief Justice John Roberts at Hospital|publisher=[[Fox News Channel]]|date=July 31, 2007|url=https://www.foxnews.com/story/president-bush-phones-chief-justice-john-roberts-at-hospital|access-date=December 5, 2008|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090203223508/http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,291465,00.html|archive-date=February 3, 2009|url-status=live|df=mdy-all}}</ref><ref name="doing fine">{{cite news|last=Chernoff |first=Alan |author2=Bill Mears|author3-link=Dana Bash |author3=Dana Bash|title=Chief justice leaves hospital after seizure |publisher=[[CNN]]|date=July 31, 2007 |url=http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/07/31/roberts.fall/index.html |access-date=December 5, 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080515234407/http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/07/31/roberts.fall/index.html |archive-date=May 15, 2008}}</ref> Roberts had suffered a similar seizure in 1993<ref name="tumbles"/><ref name="suffers seizure"/><ref name="seizure remains"/> but an official Supreme Court statement said that a neurological evaluation "revealed no cause for concern." Federal judges are not required by law to release information about their health.<ref name="tumbles"/>

On June 21, 2020, Roberts fell at a [[Maryland]] country club; his forehead required [[surgical suture|sutures]] and he stayed overnight in the hospital for observation. Doctors ruled out a seizure and believed dehydration had made Roberts light-headed.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/john-roberts-hospitalized-supreme-court/2020/07/07/6bc230ae-c0a0-11ea-b4f6-cb39cd8940fb_story.html|title=Chief Justice John Roberts was hospitalized last month after injuring his head in a fall|newspaper=[[The Washington Post]]|last=Barnes|first=Robert|date=July 7, 2020|access-date=July 8, 2020|archive-date=July 8, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200708015235/https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/john-roberts-hospitalized-supreme-court/2020/07/07/6bc230ae-c0a0-11ea-b4f6-cb39cd8940fb_story.html|url-status=live}} The incident was announced by the Supreme Court press office on July 7, 2020.</ref>

== Selected works ==
* {{Cite journal|last=Roberts|first=John|date=1978|title=Developments in the Law: Zoning – III. The Takings Clause|journal=[[Harvard Law Review]]|volume=91|pages=1462–1501|doi=10.2307/1340392|jstor=1340392}} Section III ("The Takings Clause") of the unsigned student note "Developments in the Law: Zoning" (pp.&nbsp;1427–1708).
* {{Cite journal|last=Roberts|first=John|date=1978|title=The Supreme Court, 1977 Term – Contract Clause—Legislative Alteration of Private Pension Agreements: Allied Structural Steel Co. v. Spannaus|journal=[[Harvard Law Review]]|volume=92|pages=86–98|doi=10.2307/1340566|jstor=1340566}} Subsection C ("Contract Clause—Legislative Alteration of Private Pension Agreements: Allied Structural Steel Co. v. Spannaus") of Section I ("Constitutional Law") of the unsigned student note "The Supreme Court, 1977 Term" (pp.&nbsp;1–339).
* {{Cite magazine|last1=Roberts|first1=John|date=26 February 1990|title=New Rules and Old Pose Stumbling Blocks in High Court Cases|magazine=[[Legal Times]]|last2=Prettyman|first2=Elijah Barrett Jr.|author-link2=E. Barrett Prettyman Jr.}}
* {{cite journal|date=1991|title=At Issue: The Noriega Tapes. Yes: The Order was Constitutional|journal=[[ABA Journal]]|volume=77|issue=2|pages=36|jstor=20761397|last1=Roberts|first1=John|last2=Starr|first2=Kenneth|author-link2=Ken Starr|last3=Mueller III.|first3=Robert Swan|author-link3=Robert Mueller|last4=Lazerwitz|first4=Michael}}
* {{cite journal|date=1993|title=Article III Limits on Statutory Standing|journal=[[Duke Law Journal]]|volume=42|issue=6|pages=1219–1232|doi=10.2307/1372783|jstor=1372783|last=Roberts|first=John|url=https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/dlj/vol42/iss6/4|url-access=subscription}}
* {{Cite magazine|last=Roberts|first=John|date=28 March 1993|title=Riding the Coattails of the Solicitor General|magazine=[[Legal Times]]}}
* {{Cite news|last=Roberts|first=John|date=5 May 1993|title=Rule of Law: The New Solicitor General And the Power of the Amicus|work=[[The Wall Street Journal]]|url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB112343857647406880|access-date=7 November 2020}}
* {{cite journal|last=Roberts|first=John|date=1994|title=The 1992–1993 Supreme Court|journal=Public Interest Law Review|volume=1994|pages=107}}
* {{Cite journal|last=Roberts|first=John|date=1995|title=Forfeitures: Does Innocence Matter|journal=New Jersey Law Journal|volume=142|pages=28}}
* {{Cite journal|last=Roberts|first=John|date=1997|title=Thoughts on Presenting an Effective Oral Argument|url=http://www.nsba.org/site/docs/36400/36316.pdf|journal=School Law in Review|volume=1997|pages=7-1-7-6|access-date=September 10, 2005|archive-date=September 10, 2005|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050910235657/http://www.nsba.org/site/docs/36400/36316.pdf|url-status=dead}}
* {{Cite journal|last1=Roberts|first1=John|last2=Starr|first2=Kenneth|author-link2=Ken Starr|last3=Mahoney|first3=Maureen|author-link3=Maureen Mahoney|date=2003|title=Rex E. Lee Conference on the Office of the Solicitor General of the United States: Bush Panel|url=https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/lawreview/vol2003/iss1/1/|journal=[[BYU Law Review|Brigham Young University Law Review]]|volume=2003|issue=1|pages=62–82}}
* {{cite journal|date=2005|title=Oral Advocacy and the Re-emergence of a Supreme Court Bar|journal=Journal of Supreme Court History|volume=30|issue=1|pages=68–81|doi=10.1111/j.1059-4329.2005.00098.x|last=Roberts|first=John|s2cid=145369518 }}
* {{cite journal|last=Roberts|first=John|date=2005|title=A Tribute to Chief Justice Rehnquist|journal=[[Harvard Law Review]]|volume=119|pages=1–2|url=http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/119/Nov05/Rehnquist_TributeFTX.pdf|url-status=dead|jstor=4093552|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090304021527/http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/119/Nov05/Rehnquist_TributeFTX.pdf|archive-date=March 4, 2009}}
* {{cite journal|last=Roberts|first=John|date=2006|title=Tribute to Judge Edward R. Becker|journal=[[University of Pennsylvania Law Review]]|volume=155|issue=1|pages=3–4|url=https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1254&context=penn_law_review|jstor=40041300}}
* {{cite journal|title=What Makes the D.C. Circuit Different? A Historical View|journal=[[Virginia Law Review]]|volume=92|issue=3|url=http://www.virginialawreview.org/sites/virginialawreview.org/files/375_0.pdf|last=Roberts|first=John|date=2006|pages=375–389|jstor=4144947|access-date=April 30, 2015|archive-date=January 14, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170114135020/http://www.virginialawreview.org/sites/virginialawreview.org/files/375_0.pdf|url-status=dead}}
* {{cite journal|title=In Memoriam: Justice Antonin Scalia|journal=[[Harvard Law Review]]|volume=130|issue=1|url=https://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/1-30_Compiled-Tributes_Online.pdf|last=Roberts|first=John|date=2016|pages=1–2|jstor=44072402}}
* {{cite journal|title=In Tribute: Justice Anthony M. Kennedy|journal=[[Harvard Law Review]]|volume=132|issue=1|url=https://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/1-27_Online.pdf|last=Roberts|first=John|date=2018|pages=1–3}}
* {{cite journal|title=Memoriam: Justice John Paul Stevens|journal=[[Harvard Law Review]]|volume=133|issue=3|url=https://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/747-769_Online.pdf|last=Roberts|first=John|date=2020|pages=747–748}}

== See also ==
* [[Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States]]
* [[List of justices of the Supreme Court of the United States]]
* [[List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States (Chief Justice)]]
* [[List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States (Seat 9)]]
* [[List of United States chief justices by time in office]]
* [[List of United States Supreme Court justices by time in office]]
* [[List of United States Supreme Court cases by the Roberts Court|United States Supreme Court cases decided by the Roberts Court]]

== Notes ==
<references group="lower-alpha" responsive="1"></references>

== References ==
{{Reflist}}

== Additional sources ==
{{external media| float = right| video1 = [https://www.c-span.org/video/?459084-1/the-chief Presentation by Biskupic on ''The Chief'', March 28, 2019], [[C-SPAN]]| video2 = [https://www.c-span.org/video/?458891-1/qa-joan-biskupic ''Q&A'' interview with Biskupic on ''The Chief'', March 31, 2019], [[C-SPAN]]}}
* {{Cite book |last1=Neubauer |first1=David W. |title=Battle Supreme: The Confirmation of Chief Justice John Roberts and the Future of the Supreme Court |last2=Meinhold |first2=Stephen S. |date=2005 |publisher=[[Cengage Learning|Cengage]] |isbn=978-0495171072}}
* {{Cite book|last=Toobin |first=Jeffrey |author-link=Jeffrey Toobin |title=The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court |publisher=[[Random House]] |year=2007 |isbn=978-0-385-51640-2 |url=https://archive.org/details/nineinsidesecret00toob }}
* {{Cite book |last=Greenburg |first=Jan Crawford |author-link=Jan Crawford |year=2007 |title=Supreme Conflict: The Inside Story of the Struggle for Control of the United States Supreme Court |publisher=[[Penguin Group]] |isbn=978-1-59420-101-1 |url=https://archive.org/details/supremeconflicti00gree }}
* {{Cite journal |last=Snyder |first=Brad |date=December 8, 2010 |title=The Judicial Genealogy (and Mythology) of John Roberts: Clerkships from Gray to Brandeis to Friendly to Roberts |url=https://kb.osu.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/aa0b5c62-5e75-5ef5-ad5c-2260efce3fd9/content |journal=[[Ohio State Law Journal]] |volume=71 |issue=1149 |ssrn=1722362}}
* {{Cite book |last=Tushnet |first=Mark |author-link=Mark Tushnet |title=In the Balance: Law and Politics on the Roberts Court |date=September 30, 2013 |publisher=[[W. W. Norton]] |isbn=978-0393073447}}
* {{Cite book |last=Friedman |first=Leon |url=https://archive.org/details/justicesofunited0004unse_a6q5 |title=The Justices of the United States Supreme Court: Their Lives and Major Opinions |publisher=Facts On File, Inc. |year=2013 |isbn=978-0791013779 |editor-last=Friedman |editor-first=Leon |edition=4th |location=New York, NY |chapter=John G. Roberts, Jr. |ref={{harvid|Friedman|Israel|2013}} |author-link=Leon Friedman (legal scholar) |editor-last2=Israel |editor-first2=Fred L.}}
* {{Cite journal |last=Brennan-Marquez |first=Kiel |date=2014 |others=Contribution by [[Linda Greenhouse]] |title=The Philosophy and Jurisprudence of Chief Justice Roberts |url=https://dc.law.utah.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1119&context=ulr |journal=[[Utah Law Review]] |volume=2014 |issue=1 |pages=138–186}}
* {{Cite journal |last=Whittington |first=Keith |author-link=Keith E. Whittington |date=May 2014 |title=The Least Activist Supreme Court in History? The Roberts Court and the Exercise of Judicial Review |url=https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4562&context=ndlr#:~:text=The%20Court%20under%20Chief%20Justice,the%20exercise%20of%20judicial%20review. |journal=[[Notre Dame Law Review]] |volume=89 |issue=5 |pages=2219–2252}}
* {{Cite book |last=Adler |first=Jonathan H. |author-link=Jonathan H. Adler |title=Business and the Roberts Court |publisher=[[Oxford University Press]] |year=2016 |isbn=978-0-19-062092-9}}
* {{cite book | first = Joan | last = Biskupic |author-link=Joan Biskupic| title = The Chief: The Life and Turbulent Times of Chief Justice John Roberts | location = New York | publisher = Basic Books | year = 2019 | isbn = 9780465093274}}
* {{Cite journal |last=Stone |first=Geoffrey R. |author-link=Geoffrey R. Stone |date=January 2020 |title=A Four-Decade Perspective on Life Inside the Supreme Court |url=https://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/1010-1047_Online.pdf |journal=[[Harvard Law Review]] |volume=133 |issue=3 |pages=1010–1046}}

== Further reading ==
===News articles===
* {{cite news | url = https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/21/AR2005072101782.html?nav=hcmodule | newspaper=[[The Washington Post]] | title=The Nominee As a Young Pragmatist | first1=Jo | last1=Becker | first2=Amy | last2=Argetsinger | date=July 22, 2005 | access-date=May 6, 2010 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20110629060909/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/21/AR2005072101782.html?nav=hcmodule | archive-date=June 29, 2011 | url-status=live | df=mdy-all }}
* Goodnough, Abby (July 21, 2005). [https://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/21/politics/21florida.html "Nominee Gave Quiet Advice on Recount"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141007143603/http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/21/politics/21florida.html |date=October 7, 2014 }} ''The New York Times''.
* {{cite news | last=Lane | first=Charles | date=July 21, 2005 | url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/20/AR2005072002431.html | newspaper=[[The Washington Post]] | title=Federalist Affiliation Misstated | access-date=May 6, 2010 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110629061022/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/20/AR2005072002431.html | archive-date=June 29, 2011 | url-status=live | df=mdy-all }}
* {{cite news | last=Lane | first=Charles | date=July 21, 2005 | title=Short Record as Judge Is Under a Microscope | url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/20/AR2005072002322.html | newspaper=[[The Washington Post]] | access-date=May 6, 2010 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110629061036/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/20/AR2005072002322.html | archive-date=June 29, 2011 | url-status=live | df=mdy-all }}
* {{cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/20/world/americas/20iht-web.0720profile.html|title=Colleagues call high court nominee a smart, self-effacing 'Eagle Scout' |newspaper=[[The New York Times]] |date=July 20, 2005 |access-date=February 19, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130512122012/http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/20/world/americas/20iht-web.0720profile.html|archive-date=May 12, 2013|url-status=live|df=mdy-all}}
* {{cite news | url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/19/AR2005071902065.html | newspaper=[[The Washington Post]] | title=Record of Accomplishment – and Some Contradictions | date=July 20, 2005 | access-date=May 6, 2010 | first1=R. Jeffrey | last1=Smith | first2=Jo | last2=Becker | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110629060941/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/19/AR2005071902065.html | archive-date=June 29, 2011 | url-status=live | df=mdy-all }}

===Other===
*{{cite web |url=https://www.oyez.org/justices/john_g_roberts_jr |title=John G. Roberts, Jr.|publisher=Oyez.org|access-date=April 26, 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160404054043/https://www.oyez.org/justices/john_g_roberts_jr|archive-date=April 4, 2016|url-status=live|df=mdy-all}}
* {{cite web |url = http://www.newsmeat.com/judiciary_political_donations/John_G_Roberts.php |title=NEWSMEAT ▷ John G Roberts's Federal Campaign Contribution Report |publisher=Newsmeat.com |date=August 5, 2010 |access-date=August 26, 2010 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110628190724/http://www.newsmeat.com/judiciary_political_donations/John_G_Roberts.php |archive-date=June 28, 2011 }}
* {{cite journal |ssrn = 1387162 |title=Not Hearing History: A Critique of Chief Justice Robert's Reinterpretation of Brown |author=Joel Goldstein |journal=Ohio State Law Journal |volume=69 |issue=5 |year=2008 }}
* {{cite web |url=http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/pdf/108hrg/89324.pdf |title=Hearing Before the Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate: One Hundred Eighth Congress |publisher=Access.gpo.gov |access-date=May 21, 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120206180354/http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/pdf/108hrg/89324.pdf |archive-date=February 6, 2012 |url-status=dead |df=mdy-all }}

== External links ==
{{sister project links|d=Q11153|s=Author:John Glover Roberts|c=Category:John Roberts|n=Category:John G. Roberts|b=no|v=no|voy=no|m=no|mw=no|wikt=no|species=no}}
* {{FJC Bio|nid=1391841}}
* {{Ballotpedia|John_Roberts_(Supreme_Court)}}
* {{C-SPAN|81004}}
* {{PolitiFact}}
* {{RationalWiki}}
* {{OpenSanctions}}
* [https://www.oyez.org/advocates/john_g_roberts_jr Appearances at the U.S. Supreme Court] from the [[Oyez Project]]
* [http://www.OnTheIssues.org/John_Roberts.htm Issue positions and quotes] at [[OnTheIssues]]
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20051024200447/http://www.asksam.com/ebooks/johnroberts/ Judge Roberts's Published Opinions in a searchable database]
* [http://civilliberty.about.com/od/ussupremecourt/ig/Know-Your-Supreme-Court/Chief-Justice-John-Roberts.htm Chief Justice John Roberts] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080129200917/http://civilliberty.about.com/od/ussupremecourt/ig/Know-Your-Supreme-Court/Chief-Justice-John-Roberts.htm |date=January 29, 2008 }} at About.com
* [http://www.anastigmatix.net/reference/JGR.html List of Circuit Judge Roberts's opinions for the DC Circuit ]
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20161021183019/http://www.rcfp.org/news/documents/20050721-robertsrec.html A summary of media-related cases handled by Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr.] from The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, July 21, 2005
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20050919162420/http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/ SCOTUSblog]
* [http://www.historyguy.com/biofiles/chief_justice_scotus.html List of Chief Justices, including John Roberts, Jr.]

{{s-start}}
{{s-legal}}
{{s-bef|before=[[James L. Buckley]]}}
{{s-ttl|title={{nowrap|Judge of the [[United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit]]}}|years=2003–2005}}
{{s-aft|after=[[Patricia Millett]]}}
{{s-break}}
{{s-bef|before=[[William Rehnquist]]}}
{{s-ttl|title={{nowrap|[[Chief Justice of the United States]]}}|years=2005–present}}
{{s-inc}}
{{s-break}}
{{s-prec|usa}}
{{s-bef|before=[[Mike Johnson]]|as=Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives}}
{{s-ttl|title=[[United States order of precedence|Order of precedence of the United States]]<br>''{{small|as Chief Justice of the United States}}''|years=}}
{{s-aft|after=[[Bill Clinton]]|as=Former president of the United States}}
{{s-end}}

{{John Roberts opinions}}
{{SCOTUS Justices|chiefjustices}}
{{United States Judicial Conference}}
{{US Order of Precedence}}
{{First impeachment and impeachment trial of Donald Trump}}
{{Authority control}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Roberts, John}}
[[Category:1955 births]]
[[Category:20th-century American lawyers]]
[[Category:21st-century American lawyers]]
[[Category:American people of Czechoslovak descent]]
[[Category:American people of Irish descent]]
[[Category:American people of Welsh descent]]
[[Category:Catholics from Indiana]]
[[Category:Catholics from Maine]]
[[Category:Chief justices of the United States]]
[[Category:George H. W. Bush administration personnel]]
[[Category:Georgetown University Law Center faculty]]
[[Category:Harvard College alumni]]
[[Category:Harvard Law School alumni]]
[[Category:Judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit]]
[[Category:La Lumiere School alumni]]
[[Category:Law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States]]
[[Category:Lawyers from Buffalo, New York]]
[[Category:Lawyers from Washington, D.C.]]
[[Category:Lawyers who have represented the United States government]]
[[Category:Living people]]
[[Category:People associated with Hogan Lovells]]
[[Category:People from LaPorte County, Indiana]]
[[Category:People from St. George, Maine]]
[[Category:Reagan administration personnel]]
[[Category:United States court of appeals judges appointed by George W. Bush]]
[[Category:United States Department of Justice lawyers]]
[[Category:United States federal judges appointed by George W. Bush]]
[[Category:Roberts Court]]