Sign up to receive Ballotpedia's daily newsletter Ballotpedia on Facebook Share this page Follow Ballotpedia Ballotpedia on Twitter Share this page Follow Ballotpedia John Glover Roberts, Jr. is the chief justice of the Supreme Court of the United States . He was first nominated to the Supreme Court of the United States by President George W. Bush (R) on July 19, 2005, to succeed Sandra Day O'Connor as an associate justice , following her assumption of senior status on January 31, 2006. President Bush withdrew Roberts' nomination following the death of Chief Justice William Rehnquist on September 3, 2005, in order to renominate Roberts as the 17th Chief Justice of the Supreme Court . The full U.S. Senate confirmed Roberts by a vote of 78-22, on September 29, 2005. [1] At the time of his nomination, Roberts was the youngest person to serve as chief justice since 1801. [2] Roberts began his legal career clerking for Judge Henry Friendly on the United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit , and for Justice William Rehnquist on the U.S. Supreme Court. Roberts spent two decades working in Washington, D.C., under the administrations of Ronald Reagan (R) and George H.W. Bush (R) and in private practice at the law firm Hogan & Hartson. [2] Before joining the Supreme Court, Roberts served as a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit from 2003 to 2005. [2] In 2007, Roberts described his vision as chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court as building more unanimity among the justices and working to issue fewer 5-4 decisions. [3] [4] According to SCOTUSblog , 20 percent of all cases decided during The Roberts Court —the 2005-2024 Terms—have been decided in 5-3 or 5-4 decisions, and 45 percent of the cases were decided unanimously. [5] In 2025, Dr. Adam Feldman's analysis of term data concluded that unanimity had declined over the course of Roberts' tenure as chief justice , "From 2010 to 2016, unanimous rulings often made up half of the court’s decisions or more. The high-water mark for this period—64 percent—came in the 2013 term. Today, that number is falling slowly but perceptibly–down from 50 percent in 2022 to 44 percent in 2023 to 42 percent in the 2024-25 term." [6] Over time, Roberts has expressed his view that the Court is not a political branch of government. In 2009, Roberts said of the Court, "The most important thing for the public to understand is that we are not a political branch of government. They don’t elect us. If they don’t like what we are doing, it’s more or less just too bad, other than impeachment...” [7] In 2022, Associated Press Reporter Colleen Slevin covered Roberts' first public appearance after the Court's ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022) striking down the constitutional right to abortion, writing, "Roberts has spoken out repeatedly about the importance of the judiciary’s independence and to rebut perceptions of the court as a political institution not much different than Congress or the presidency." [8] Roberts’ notable opinions include cases concerning the Affordable Care Act , [9] racial discrimination in school admissions, [10] the President of the United States' appointment and removal powers, [11] tax breaks for religiously-affiliated schools, [12] the right to abortion under the U.S. Constitution, [13] the Voting Rights Act , [14] , Native American tribal nations’ health care funding, [15] and birthright citizenship. [16] Click here to read more about Chief Justice Roberts' noteworthy opinions. 1 Judicial nominations and appointments 1.1 United States Supreme Court (2005-present) 1.2 District of Columbia Court of Appeals (2003-2005) 1.1 United States Supreme Court (2005-present) 1.2 District of Columbia Court of Appeals (2003-2005) 2 Biography 2.1 Early life and education 2.2 Professional career 2.2.1 Executive branch service 2.2.1.1 Reagan administration 2.2.1.2 George H.W. Bush administration 2.2.2 Private practice 2.1 Early life and education 2.2 Professional career 2.2.1 Executive branch service 2.2.1.1 Reagan administration 2.2.1.2 George H.W. Bush administration 2.2.2 Private practice 2.2.1 Executive branch service 2.2.1.1 Reagan administration 2.2.1.2 George H.W. Bush administration 2.2.1.1 Reagan administration 2.2.1.2 George H.W. Bush administration 2.2.2 Private practice 3 Approach to the law 3.1 Martin-Quinn score 3.2 Video discussion 3.1 Martin-Quinn score 3.2 Video discussion 4 Supreme Court statistics 4.1 Opinions by year 4.2 Justice agreement 4.3 Frequency in majority 4.1 Opinions by year 4.2 Justice agreement 4.3 Frequency in majority 5 Noteworthy cases 5.1 U.S. Supreme Court noteworthy opinions 5.1.1 Imprisoned people entitled to jury trial on Prison Litigation Reform Act exhaustion (2025) 5.1.2 Imprisoned people entitled to jury trial on Prison Litigation Reform Act exhaustion (2024) 5.1.3 Native American tribal nations’ health care funding (2024) 5.1.4 Alabama redistricting map and the Voting Rights Act (2023) 5.1.5 No right to abortion under the U.S. Constitution (2022) 5.1.6 Transportation orders in post-conviction claims (2022) 5.1.7 Jurisdictional requirements of eminent domain under the Natural Gas Act (2021) 5.1.8 Authority of administrative patent judges in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (2021) 5.1.9 Decision to end DACA (2020) 5.1.10 Copyright of a state's official annotated code (2019) 5.1.11 Tax breaks for religiously-affiliated schools (2019) 5.1.12 President's appointment and removal powers (2019) 5.1.13 Census citizenship question (2018) 5.1.14 Partisan gerrymandering (2018) 5.1.15 State-litigation requirement from Williamson Cty. Planning v. Hamilton Bank (1985) overruled (2018) 5.1.16 Ambiguous agreements cannot provide necessary contractual basis for class arbitration (2018) 5.1.17 Affordable Care Act tax credits extend to federally created exchanges (2015) 5.1.18 Affordable Care Act allowed to stand (2012) 5.1.19 Constitutionality of race-based school assignments (2007) 5.2 Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit opinions 5.2.1 Majority opinion in case involving zero-tolerance law at Metrorail station (2004) 5.2.2 Dissenting opinion in case involving Endangered Species Act (2003) 5.1 U.S. Supreme Court noteworthy opinions 5.1.1 Imprisoned people entitled to jury trial on Prison Litigation Reform Act exhaustion (2025) 5.1.2 Imprisoned people entitled to jury trial on Prison Litigation Reform Act exhaustion (2024) 5.1.3 Native American tribal nations’ health care funding (2024) 5.1.4 Alabama redistricting map and the Voting Rights Act (2023) 5.1.5 No right to abortion under the U.S. Constitution (2022) 5.1.6 Transportation orders in post-conviction claims (2022) 5.1.7 Jurisdictional requirements of eminent domain under the Natural Gas Act (2021) 5.1.8 Authority of administrative patent judges in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (2021) 5.1.9 Decision to end DACA (2020) 5.1.10 Copyright of a state's official annotated code (2019) 5.1.11 Tax breaks for religiously-affiliated schools (2019) 5.1.12 President's appointment and removal powers (2019) 5.1.13 Census citizenship question (2018) 5.1.14 Partisan gerrymandering (2018) 5.1.15 State-litigation requirement from Williamson Cty. Planning v. Hamilton Bank (1985) overruled (2018) 5.1.16 Ambiguous agreements cannot provide necessary contractual basis for class arbitration (2018) 5.1.17 Affordable Care Act tax credits extend to federally created exchanges (2015) 5.1.18 Affordable Care Act allowed to stand (2012) 5.1.19 Constitutionality of race-based school assignments (2007) 5.1.1 Imprisoned people entitled to jury trial on Prison Litigation Reform Act exhaustion (2025) 5.1.2 Imprisoned people entitled to jury trial on Prison Litigation Reform Act exhaustion (2024) 5.1.3 Native American tribal nations’ health care funding (2024) 5.1.4 Alabama redistricting map and the Voting Rights Act (2023) 5.1.5 No right to abortion under the U.S. Constitution (2022) 5.1.6 Transportation orders in post-conviction claims (2022) 5.1.7 Jurisdictional requirements of eminent domain under the Natural Gas Act (2021) 5.1.8 Authority of administrative patent judges in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (2021) 5.1.9 Decision to end DACA (2020) 5.1.10 Copyright of a state's official annotated code (2019) 5.1.11 Tax breaks for religiously-affiliated schools (2019) 5.1.12 President's appointment and removal powers (2019) 5.1.13 Census citizenship question (2018) 5.1.14 Partisan gerrymandering (2018) 5.1.15 State-litigation requirement from Williamson Cty. Planning v. Hamilton Bank (1985) overruled (2018) 5.1.16 Ambiguous agreements cannot provide necessary contractual basis for class arbitration (2018) 5.1.17 Affordable Care Act tax credits extend to federally created exchanges (2015) 5.1.18 Affordable Care Act allowed to stand (2012) 5.1.19 Constitutionality of race-based school assignments (2007) 5.2 Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit opinions 5.2.1 Majority opinion in case involving zero-tolerance law at Metrorail station (2004) 5.2.2 Dissenting opinion in case involving Endangered Species Act (2003) 5.2.1 Majority opinion in case involving zero-tolerance law at Metrorail station (2004) 5.2.2 Dissenting opinion in case involving Endangered Species Act (2003) 6 About the courts 6.1 U.S. Supreme Court 6.2 U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 6.1 U.S. Supreme Court 6.2 U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 8 External links Judicial nominations and appointments United States Supreme Court (2005-present) Roberts was first nominated to the Supreme Court of the United States by President George W. Bush (R) on July 19, 2005, to fill the vacancy of Sandra Day O'Connor , who retired in 2005. President Bush withdrew his nomination of Roberts when Chief Justice William Rehnquist died on September 3, 2005, in order to renominate Roberts to become the 17th Chief Justice of the Supreme Court . President Bush renominated Roberts on September 6, 2005. President Bush asked the U.S. Senate to expedite his nomination to fill the vacancy prior to the start of the Supreme Court's October Term 2005 . [2] During his Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Roberts stated that if confirmed to the post, he would approach cases with an open mind. He compared his role as chief justice to a baseball umpire, stating, "My job is to call balls and strikes, not pitch or bat." [17] On September 22nd, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved Roberts' nomination by a vote of 13-5, with Senators Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Joe Biden (D-Del.), and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) casting the dissenting votes. The full U.S. Senate confirmed Roberts on September 29th with a vote of 78-22. [18] District of Columbia Court of Appeals (2003-2005) Roberts was first nominated by President George H.W. Bush (R) to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 1992. His nomination was never taken up for a vote, and he returned to private practice after President Bush lost the 1992 presidential election to President Bill Clinton (D). [19] [20] In May 2001, Roberts was appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by President George W. Bush (R). His nomination never received a vote by the Senate Judiciary Committee , so it did not progress to the full U.S. Senate. [2] [19] [20] President Bush renominated Roberts in January 2003, after Republicans gained a majority in the U.S. Senate, and he was unanimously confirmed on May 8, 2003. [2] [19] [20] During his two years on the bench, Roberts authored 49 opinions, two of which elicited dissents from other judges. Roberts authored three dissenting opinions. Roberts left the court upon his elevation to the Supreme Court of the United States in 2005. [2] [19] [20] Early life and education Roberts was born in Buffalo, New York , on January 27, 1955. His religion is Roman Catholic. He graduated from La Lumiere School—at the time an all-boys Roman Catholic boarding school—in LaPorte, Indiana , in 1973. [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] Roberts attended Harvard University for both his undergraduate and law degrees. He received his undergraduate degree from Harvard College in 1976. He wrote his thesis on British liberalism in the early 20th century and graduated summa cum laude . He received his J.D. from Harvard Law School in 1979. At Harvard Law School, he served as managing editor of the Harvard Law Review and graduated magna cum laude . [26] [27] Professional career 2005-Present: Chief justice , Supreme Court of the United States 2003-2005: Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 1993-2003: Partner, Hogan & Hartson LLP 1989-1993: Principal deputy solicitor general, United States Department of Justice 1986-1989: Attorney, Hogan & Hartson 1982-1986: Associate counsel to President Ronald Reagan (R), White House Counsel's Office 1981-1982: Special assistant to Attorney General William French Smith, United States Department of Justice 1980-1981: Law clerk, Hon. William Rehnquist , Supreme Court of the United States 1979-1980: Law clerk, Hon. Henry Friendly , United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit 1978: Law clerk, Carlsmith, Carlsmith, Wichman & Case 1977: Law clerk, Ice, Miller, Donadio & Ryan Executive branch service Upon his graduation, Roberts clerked for Judge Henry Friendly on the United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit , and then clerked for Chief Justice William Rehnquist . Afterward, Roberts was appointed to serve in the executive branch during the administrations of Republican presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush . [2] Roberts served as special assistant to U.S. Attorney General William French Smith from 1981 to 1982. His work in that position included advising the attorney general, writing speeches, and representing the attorney general in meetings with executive branch and state and local government officials. [2] [19] [20] From 1982 to 1986, Roberts served as associate counsel to President Ronald Reagan 's (R) White House Office of Counsel under Fred F. Fielding. In this position, he reviewed bills submitted to the president by Congress, drafted and reviewed executive orders, and performed general legal reviews of presidential activities. [28] [27] Roberts served as principal deputy solicitor general in the United States Department of Justice from 1989 to 1993. As principal deputy solicitor general, Roberts briefed and argued a variety of cases before the Supreme Court of the United States on behalf of the U.S. government. [27] Private practice From 1986 to 1989, Roberts practiced law in Washington, D.C. as an associate at Hogan & Hartson LLP. He made partner in 1988 while building a civil litigation practice focused on appellate matters. Roberts left the firm in 1989 to serve as principal deputy solicitor general in President George H.W. Bush 's (R) administration. He returned in 1993 to lead the firm's appellate practice group. [29] Roberts argued his first case before the Supreme Court of the United States in 1989. As a court-appointed attorney, he successfully represented his client against the United States government in United States v. Halper (1989), a double jeopardy case decided by a unanimous court. [30] Roberts would ultimately argue a total of 39 cases before the Supreme Court of the United States , with successful rulings in 25 of those cases. In 2000, Roberts provided legal counsel and expertise to then-presidential candidate George W. Bush 's (R) legal team—including his brother and then- Governor of Florida Jeb Bush (R)—related to the 2000 presidential election recount and pending U.S. Supreme Court case deciding whether the recount was permissible. Future SCOTUS justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett —appointed to the Court by President Donald Trump (R) in 2018 and 2020, respectively—also provided legal assistance to Bush's team during the recount case. Ultimately, SCOTUS ruled that Florida's vote recount order was unconstitutional and George W. Bush became 43rd President of the United States . [31] [32] Click here to learn more about the U.S. Supreme Court case Bush v. Gore (2000) concerning the disputed election results in Florida. Approach to the law Generally considered to be a practitioner of judicial restraint , Roberts most often votes with the conservative wing of the court. As chief justice , Roberts has described his approach as trying to build more unanimity and working to issue fewer 5-4 decisions. [33] [34] Oyez , a law project created by Cornell’s Legal Information Institute, Justia, and Chicago-Kent College of Law, said that Roberts "has advocated and implemented a refocusing of the Supreme Court to an era of judicial restraint and deference to the existing power structure in American politics." [22] Although considered a conservative member of the court, Politico noted that Roberts has sometimes sided with the court's liberal justices. Josh Gerstein wrote that "Roberts’ tendency to side with liberals in some cases embraced by many Republican activists seems to grate on many conservative lawyers, including some who helped lead the fight to confirm him." [35] Martin-Quinn score Roberts' Martin-Quinn score following the 2024-2025 term was 0.33, making him the sixth-most conservative justice on the court at that time. Martin-Quinn scores were developed by political scientists Andrew Martin and Kevin Quinn from the University of Michigan, and measure the justices of the Supreme Court along an ideological continuum. The further from zero on the scale, the more conservative (>0) or liberal (<0) the justice. The chart below details every justice's Martin-Quinn score for the 2024-2025 term. Video discussion Roberts spoke at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in April 2017 about his approach to the law, the role of the Supreme Court, and the confirmation process. The video of that event is embedded below. Supreme Court statistics Opinions by year Below is a table of the number of opinions, concurrences, and dissents that Roberts has issued since joining the Supreme Court, according to the data from Cornell University’s Legal Information Institute and from the annual Stat Pack produced by the website SCOTUSBlog . This information is updated annually at the end of each term. [36] [37] Information for the 2022 term is from a dataset provided by Dr. Adam Feldman, author of Empirical SCOTUS . Data for the 2022-2023 term does not include concurrences and dissents in part. Information for the 2023 term is from the Empirical SCOTUS 2023 Stat Review . Information for the 2024-2025 term and later is from the SCOTUSblog Stat Pack . Click here for information on Justice Roberts' opinions from 2005 to 2022. Opinions written by year, Roberts 2005 - 2006 2006 - 2007 2007 - 2008 2008 - 2009 2009 - 2010 2010 - 2011 2011 - 2012 2012 - 2013 2013 - 2014 2014 - 2015 2015 - 2016 2016 - 2017 2017 - 2018 2018 - 2019 2019 - 2020 2020 - 2021 2021 - 2022 Opinions 1 7 8 8 8 7 8 8 7 7 7 8 6 7 7 7 8 Concurrences 0 2 0 5 3 3 0 4 2 2 2 0 1 2 1 2 2 Dissents 0 1 3 4 4 2 3 7 3 5 5 2 4 3 1 2 1 Totals 1 12 11 17 17 12 11 17 12 14 11 10 11 12 9 11 11 Justice agreement In the 2025-2026 term, Roberts had the highest agreement rate with Brett Kavanaugh . Roberts had the lowest agreement rate with Ketanji Brown Jackson . [38] Frequency in majority In the 2023-2024 term, Roberts was in the majority in 97 percent of decisions. He was in the majority more often than the eight other justices. [39] In the 2022-2023 term, Roberts was in the majority in 95 percent of decisions. He and Justice Brett Kavanaugh , who was in the majority in 96 percent of decisions, were in the majority more often than the seven other justices. [40] [41] [42] Since the 2011-2012 term, Roberts has been in the majority at least 80 percent of the time each term, and been in the majority more than 90 percent of the time ten times. Across those terms, he has been in the majority for 91 percent of all cases. [42] [39] Noteworthy cases The noteworthy cases listed in this section include any case where the justice authored a 5-4 majority opinion or an 8-1 dissent. Other cases may be included in this section if they set or overturn an established legal precedent, are a major point of discussion in an election campaign, receive substantial media attention related to the justice's ruling, or based on our editorial judgment that the case is noteworthy. For more on how we decide which cases are noteworthy, click here . Since he joined the court through the 2023-2024 term, Roberts authored the majority opinion in a 5-4 decision 34 times and authored one dissent in an 8-1 decision. The table below details these cases by year. [43] U.S. Supreme Court noteworthy opinions SCOTUS 2025 term (Click to expand) Imprisoned people entitled to jury trial on Prison Litigation Reform Act exhaustion (2025) See also: Trump v. Cook Justice Roberts authored a 5-4 majority opinion in Trump v. Cook , denying to issue a stay overruling a lower court's injunction, which prevented President Donald Trump (R) from prematurely firing Federal Reserve System Governor Lisa Cook. Although the court refused to intervene, it did not issue a ruling on the merits of her firing. Rather, this decision was a refusal to intervene in the lower court's decision, based on the Court's interpretation of current statute. Roberts was joined in the majority by Justices Sonia Sotomayor , Elena Kagan , Brett Kavanaugh , and Ketanji Brown Jackson . [44] Imprisoned people entitled to jury trial on Prison Litigation Reform Act exhaustion (2025) Justice Roberts authored a 5-4 majority opinion in Trump v. Cook , denying to issue a stay overruling a lower court's injunction, which prevented President Donald Trump (R) from prematurely firing Federal Reserve System Governor Lisa Cook. Although the court refused to intervene, it did not issue a ruling on the merits of her firing. Rather, this decision was a refusal to intervene in the lower court's decision, based on the Court's interpretation of current statute. Roberts was joined in the majority by Justices Sonia Sotomayor , Elena Kagan , Brett Kavanaugh , and Ketanji Brown Jackson . [44] SCOTUS 2024 term (Click to expand) Imprisoned people entitled to jury trial on Prison Litigation Reform Act exhaustion (2024) See also: Perttu v. Richards Justice Roberts authored a 5-4 majority opinion in Perttu v. Richards , holding that parties are entitled to a jury trial on Prison Litigation Reform Act exhaustion when that issue is intertwined with the merits of a claim that requires a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment. Roberts was joined in the majority by Justices Sonia Sotomayor , Elena Kagan , Neil Gorsuch , and Ketanji Brown Jackson . [45] “ If Congress had expressly provided in the PLRA that exhaustion disputes must be resolved by judges, then we would have been required to consider today whether such a provision violates the Seventh Amendment. But it is a ‘cardinal principle’ that we not address such a constitutional question unless necessary. Tull v. United States, 481 U. S. 412, 417, n. 3 (1987). Meanwhile, as we have shown, the usual practice of the federal courts in cases of intertwinement is to send common issues to the jury. Because nothing in the PLRA suggests Congress intended to depart from that practice here, we hold that parties are entitled to a jury trial on PLRA exhaustion when that issue is intertwined with the merits of a claim protected by the Seventh Amendment. The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is affirmed. [46] ” —Justice Chief Justice John Roberts Imprisoned people entitled to jury trial on Prison Litigation Reform Act exhaustion (2024) Justice Roberts authored a 5-4 majority opinion in Perttu v. Richards , holding that parties are entitled to a jury trial on Prison Litigation Reform Act exhaustion when that issue is intertwined with the merits of a claim that requires a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment. Roberts was joined in the majority by Justices Sonia Sotomayor , Elena Kagan , Neil Gorsuch , and Ketanji Brown Jackson . [45] The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is affirmed. [46] SCOTUS 2023 term (Click to expand) Native American tribal nations’ health care funding (2024) See also: Becerra v. San Carlos Apache Tribe Roberts authored a 5-4 opinion in the case Becerra v. San Carlos Apache Tribe , consolidated with Becerra v. Northern Arapaho Tribe , holding that "The Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDA) requires the Indian Health Service (IHS) to pay the contract support costs that a tribe incurs when it collects and spends program income to further the functions, services, activities, and programs transferred to it from IHS in a self-determination contract." [47] Justice Brett Kavanaugh filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas , Samuel Alito , and Amy Coney Barrett . In the court's majority opinion, Chief Justice Roberts wrote: [47] “ Contract support costs are necessary to prevent a funding gap between tribes and IHS. By definition, these are costs that IHS does not incur when it provides healthcare services funded by congressional appropriations and third-party income. §§5325(a)(2)(A) and (B). But they are costs that tribes must bear when they provide, on their own,healthcare services funded by the Secretarial amount and program income. If IHS does not cover costs to support a tribe’s expenditure of program income, the tribe would have to divert some program income to pay such costs, or it would have to pay them out of its own pocket. Either way, the tribe would face a systemic funding shortfall relative to IHS—a penalty for pursuing self-determination. The self-determination contracts of the San Carlos Apache Tribe and Northern Arapaho Tribe require them to collect and spend program income to further the functions, services, activities, and programs transferred to them from IHS. When the Tribes do so and incur administrative costs, ISDA requires IHS to pay those support costs. [46] ” —Chief Justice Roberts Native American tribal nations’ health care funding (2024) Roberts authored a 5-4 opinion in the case Becerra v. San Carlos Apache Tribe , consolidated with Becerra v. Northern Arapaho Tribe , holding that "The Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDA) requires the Indian Health Service (IHS) to pay the contract support costs that a tribe incurs when it collects and spends program income to further the functions, services, activities, and programs transferred to it from IHS in a self-determination contract." [47] Justice Brett Kavanaugh filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas , Samuel Alito , and Amy Coney Barrett . In the court's majority opinion, Chief Justice Roberts wrote: [47] The self-determination contracts of the San Carlos Apache Tribe and Northern Arapaho Tribe require them to collect and spend program income to further the functions, services, activities, and programs transferred to them from IHS. When the Tribes do so and incur administrative costs, ISDA requires IHS to pay those support costs. [46] SCOTUS 2022 term (Click to expand) Alabama redistricting map and the Voting Rights Act (2023) See also: Allen v. Milligan Roberts authored an opinion in Allen v. Milligan . In a 5-4 decision, the court affirmed the judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama , holding that the plaintiffs showed a reasonable likelihood of success concerning their claim that Alabama's redistricting map (HB1) violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act . Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the opinion of the court. [48] [49] In the court's majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote: [48] “ But this Court has never held that a State’s adherence to a previously used districting plan can defeat a §2 claim. If that were the rule, a State could immunize from challenge a new racially discriminatory redistricting plan simply by claiming that it resembled an old racially discriminatory plan. That is not the law: §2 does not permit a State to provide some voters “less opportunity . . . to participate in the political process” just because the State has done it before. ... The heart of these cases is not about the law as it exists. It is about Alabama’s attempt to remake our §2 jurisprudence anew. The centerpiece of the State’s effort is what it calls the“race-neutral benchmark.” The theory behind it is this: Using modern computer technology, mapmakers can now generate millions of possible districting maps for a given State.The maps can be designed to comply with traditional districting criteria but to not consider race. The mapmaker can determine how many majority-minority districts exist in each map, and can then calculate the median or average number of majority-minority districts in the entire multi-million-map set. That number is called the race-neutral benchmark. ... [W]e find Alabama’s new approach to §2 compelling neither in theory nor in practice. [46] ” — Chief Justice John Roberts Alabama redistricting map and the Voting Rights Act (2023) Roberts authored an opinion in Allen v. Milligan . In a 5-4 decision, the court affirmed the judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama , holding that the plaintiffs showed a reasonable likelihood of success concerning their claim that Alabama's redistricting map (HB1) violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act . Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the opinion of the court. [48] [49] In the court's majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote: [48] The heart of these cases is not about the law as it exists. It is about Alabama’s attempt to remake our §2 jurisprudence anew. The centerpiece of the State’s effort is what it calls the“race-neutral benchmark.” The theory behind it is this: Using modern computer technology, mapmakers can now generate millions of possible districting maps for a given State.The maps can be designed to comply with traditional districting criteria but to not consider race. The mapmaker can determine how many majority-minority districts exist in each map, and can then calculate the median or average number of majority-minority districts in the entire multi-million-map set. That number is called the race-neutral benchmark. ... [W]e find Alabama’s new approach to §2 compelling neither in theory nor in practice. [46] SCOTUS 2021 term (Click to expand) No right to abortion under the U.S. Constitution (2022) See also: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization Roberts authored an opinion concurring in judgment in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization . Roberts wrote that he would uphold Mississippi's abortion law but not overturn Roe and Casey . Associate Justice Samuel Alito authored the majority opinion, holding that the U.S. Constitution did not provide a right to abortion. Alito was also joined by Associate Justices Clarence Thomas , Neil Gorsuch , Brett Kavanaugh , and Amy Coney Barrett . Alito wrote: “ We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled. The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely—the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That provision has been held to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution, but any such right must be “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.” Washington v. Glucksberg , 521 U. S. 702, 721 (1997) (internal quotation marks omitted). The right to abortion does not fall within this category. [46] ” —Justice Alito In his concurring opinion, Roberts wrote: “ I would take a more measured course. I agree with the Court that the viability line established by Roe and Casey should be discarded under a straightforward stare decisis analysis. That line never made any sense. Our abortion precedents describe the right at issue as a woman’s right to choose to terminate her pregnancy. That right should therefore extend far enough to ensure a reasonable opportunity to choose, but need not extend any further—certainly not all the way to viability. Mississippi’s law allows a woman three months to obtain an abortion, well beyond the point at which it is considered “late” to discover a pregnancy. See A. Ayoola, Late Recognition of Unintended Pregnancies, 32 Pub. Health Nursing 462 (2015) (pregnancy is discoverable and ordinarily discovered by six weeks of gestation). I see no sound basis for questioning the adequacy of that opportunity. But that is all I would say, out of adherence to a simple yet fundamental principle of judicial restraint: If it is not necessary to decide more to dispose of a case, then it is necessary not to decide more. Perhaps we are not always perfect in following that command, and certainly there are cases that warrant an exception. But this is not one of them. Surely we should adhere closely to principles of judicial restraint here, where the broader path the Court chooses entails repudiating a constitutional right we have not only previously recognized, but also expressly reaffirmed applying the doctrine of stare decisis. The Court’s opinion is thoughtful and thorough, but those virtues cannot compensate for the fact that its dramatic and consequential ruling is unnecessary to decide the case before us. [46] ” —Chief Justice Roberts Transportation orders in post-conviction claims (2022) See also: Shoop v. Twyford Roberts authored a 5-4 majority opinion in Shoop v. Twyford , holding that a transportation order allowing a prisoner to search for new evidence is not necessary or appropriate in aid of a federal court’s adjudication of a habeas corpus action when the prisoner has not shown that the desired evidence would be admissible in connection with a particular claim for relief. [50] In the court's majority opinion, Chief Justice Roberts wrote: [50] “ The All Writs Act authorizes federal courts to “issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” 28 U.S.C. §1651(a). In this case, the District Court ordered the State to transport a prisoner in its custody to a hospital for medical testing. The prisoner argued that the testing could reveal evidence helpful in his effort to obtain habeas corpus relief. The question is whether the District Court’s order is “necessary or appropriate in aid of ” the federal court’s resolution of the prisoner’s habeas case. We hold that it is not, and therefore reverse. [46] ” —Chief Justice Roberts No right to abortion under the U.S. Constitution (2022) Roberts authored an opinion concurring in judgment in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization . Roberts wrote that he would uphold Mississippi's abortion law but not overturn Roe and Casey . Associate Justice Samuel Alito authored the majority opinion, holding that the U.S. Constitution did not provide a right to abortion. Alito was also joined by Associate Justices Clarence Thomas , Neil Gorsuch , Brett Kavanaugh , and Amy Coney Barrett . Alito wrote: Amendment. That provision has been held to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution, but any such right must be “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.” Washington v. Glucksberg , 521 U. S. 702, 721 (1997) (internal quotation marks omitted). The right to abortion does not fall within this category. [46] In his concurring opinion, Roberts wrote: But that is all I would say, out of adherence to a simple yet fundamental principle of judicial restraint: If it is not necessary to decide more to dispose of a case, then it is necessary not to decide more. Perhaps we are not always perfect in following that command, and certainly there are cases that warrant an exception. But this is not one of them. Surely we should adhere closely to principles of judicial restraint here, where the broader path the Court chooses entails repudiating a constitutional right we have not only previously recognized, but also expressly reaffirmed applying the doctrine of stare decisis. The Court’s opinion is thoughtful and thorough, but those virtues cannot compensate for the fact that its dramatic and consequential ruling is unnecessary to decide the case before us. [46] Transportation orders in post-conviction claims (2022) Roberts authored a 5-4 majority opinion in Shoop v. Twyford , holding that a transportation order allowing a prisoner to search for new evidence is not necessary or appropriate in aid of a federal court’s adjudication of a habeas corpus action when the prisoner has not shown that the desired evidence would be admissible in connection with a particular claim for relief. [50] In the court's majority opinion, Chief Justice Roberts wrote: [50] SCOTUS 2020 term (Click to expand) Jurisdictional requirements of eminent domain under the Natural Gas Act (2021) See also: PennEast Pipeline Co. v. New Jersey Roberts authored a 5-4 majority opinion in PennEast Pipeline Co. v. New Jersey , holding that Section 717f(h) authorizes FERC certificate holders to condemn all necessary rights-of-way, whether owned by private parties or by states. Chief Justice Roberts was joined in the majority by Justices Stephen Breyer , Samuel Alito , Sonia Sotomayor , and Brett Kavanaugh . Justice Neil Gorsuch filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas . Justice Amy Coney Barrett filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas , Elena Kagan , and Neil Gorsuch . [51] In the court's majority opinion, Chief Justice Roberts wrote: [51] “ From humble beginnings in central Indiana, the Nation’s interstate pipeline system has grown to span hundreds of thousands of miles. This development was made possible by the enactment of §717f(h) in 1947. By its terms, §717f(h) authorizes FERC certificate holders to condemn all necessary rights-of-way, whether owned by private parties or States. Such condemnation actions do not offend state sovereignty, because the States consented at the founding to the exercise of the federal eminent domain power, whether by public officials or private delegatees. Because the Third Circuit reached a contrary conclusion, we reverse the judgment below and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. [46] ” —Chief Justice Roberts Authority of administrative patent judges in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (2021) See also: United States v. Arthrex Inc. Roberts authored a 5-4 majority opinion in United States v. Arthrex Inc. , holding that the system granting Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) the power to issue final decisions without effective oversight was unconstitutional. The court ruled 7-2 to fix the constitutional issue by removing the statutory provisions that blocked the director of the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) from unilaterally reviewing APJ decisions. Chief Justice Roberts was joined in the majority by Justices Samuel Alito , Neil Gorsuch , Brett Kavanaugh , and Amy Coney Barrett . Justice Clarence Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Stephen Breyer , Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan in parts I and II. [52] In the court's majority opinion, Chief Justice Roberts wrote: [52] “ Today, we reaffirm and apply the rule from Edmond that the exercise of executive power by inferior officers must at some level be subject to the direction and supervision of an officer nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The Constitution therefore forbids the enforcement of statutory restrictions on the Director that insulate the decisions of APJs from his direction and supervision. To be clear, the Director need not review every decision of the PTAB. What matters is that the Director have the discretion to review decisions rendered by APJs. In this way, the President remains responsible for the exercise of executive power—and through him, the exercise of executive power remains accountable to the people. [46] ” Jurisdictional requirements of eminent domain under the Natural Gas Act (2021) Roberts authored a 5-4 majority opinion in PennEast Pipeline Co. v. New Jersey , holding that Section 717f(h) authorizes FERC certificate holders to condemn all necessary rights-of-way, whether owned by private parties or by states. Chief Justice Roberts was joined in the majority by Justices Stephen Breyer , Samuel Alito , Sonia Sotomayor , and Brett Kavanaugh . Justice Neil Gorsuch filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas . Justice Amy Coney Barrett filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas , Elena Kagan , and Neil Gorsuch . [51] In the court's majority opinion, Chief Justice Roberts wrote: [51] Authority of administrative patent judges in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (2021) Roberts authored a 5-4 majority opinion in United States v. Arthrex Inc. , holding that the system granting Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) the power to issue final decisions without effective oversight was unconstitutional. The court ruled 7-2 to fix the constitutional issue by removing the statutory provisions that blocked the director of the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) from unilaterally reviewing APJ decisions. Chief Justice Roberts was joined in the majority by Justices Samuel Alito , Neil Gorsuch , Brett Kavanaugh , and Amy Coney Barrett . Justice Clarence Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Stephen Breyer , Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan in parts I and II. [52] In the court's majority opinion, Chief Justice Roberts wrote: [52] SCOTUS 2019 term (Click to expand) Decision to end DACA (2020) See also: Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California Roberts authored a 5-4 majority opinion in Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California , holding the U.S. Department of Homeland Security 's (DHS) decision to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program did not properly follow the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Chief Justice Roberts was joined in the majority by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg , Stephen Breyer , Elena Kagan , and Sonia Sotomayor . [53] In the majority opinion, Chief Justice Roberts wrote: [53] “ The dispute before the Court is not whether DHS may rescind DACA. All parties agree that it may. The dispute is instead primarily about the procedure the agency followed in doing so. ... Because DHS was 'not writing on a blank slate,' ... it was required to assess whether there were reliance interests, determine whether they were significant, and weigh any such interests against competing policy concerns. ... Acting Secretary Duke should have considered those matters but did not. That failure was arbitrary and capricious in violation of the APA. [46] ” —Chief Justice Roberts Copyright of a state's official annotated code (2019) See also: Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org Inc. In Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org Inc. , the Court affirmed the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit , holding "under the government edicts doctrine, officials empowered to speak with the force of law cannot be the authors of the works they create in the course of their official duties." Therefore, "the OCGA annotations are ineligible for copyright protection." [54] Roberts authored the Court's 5-4 majority opinion. He was joined in the majority by Justices Sonia Sotomayor , Elena Kagan , Neil Gorsuch , and Brett Kavanaugh . [54] “ Under what has been dubbed the government edicts doctrine, officials empowered to speak with the force of law cannot be the authors of—and therefore cannot copyright—the works they create in the course of their official duties. ... Copyright does not vest in works that are (1) created by judges and legislators (2) in the course of their judicial and legislative duties. [46] ” —Chief Justice Roberts Tax breaks for religiously-affiliated schools (2019) See also: Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue Roberts authored a 5-4 majority opinion in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue , holding the application of Article X, Section 6 of the Montana Constitution , known as Montana's Blaine Amendment banning the use of public funds for aiding a religious school, violated the free exercise clause of the U.S. Constitution. Chief Justice Roberts was joined in the majority by Justices Clarence Thomas , Samuel Alito , Neil Gorsuch , and Brett Kavanaugh . [55] The chief justice wrote: [55] “ Disqualifying otherwise eligible recipients from a public benefit “solely because of their religious character” imposes “a penalty on the free exercise of religion that triggers the most exacting scrutiny.” ... Montana’s no-aid provision bars religious schools from public benefits solely because of the religious character of the schools. The provision also bars parents who wish to send their children to a religious school from those same benefits, again solely because of the religious character of the school. This is apparent from the plain text. [46] ” —Chief Justice Roberts President's appointment and removal powers (2019) See also: Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau In Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau , the U.S. Supreme Court nullified the 9th Circuit's ruling with a 5-4 vote against the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and sent the case back to the 9th Circuit for further proceedings. Roberts authored the majority opinion, holding that the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)—an independent agency that exercised executive powers and had a director protected from at-will termination by the president—was unconstitutional. Specifically, a majority of the justices ruled that making the director of the CFPB removable by the president alone for inefficiency, neglect, or malfeasance violated the separation of powers. Chief Justice Roberts was joined in the majority by Justices Clarence Thomas , Samuel Alito , Neil Gorsuch , and Brett Kavanaugh . [56] In the opinion of the Court, Roberts wrote: [56] “ A decade ago, we declined to extend Congress’s authority to limit the President’s removal power to a new situation, never before confronted by the Court. We do the same today. In our constitutional system, the executive power belongs to the President, and that power generally includes the ability to supervise and remove the agents who wield executive power in his stead. While we have previously upheld limits on the President’s removal authority in certain contexts, we decline to do so when it comes to principal officers who, acting alone, wield significant executive power. The Constitution requires that such officials remain dependent on the President, who in turn is accountable to the people. [46] ” Decision to end DACA (2020) Roberts authored a 5-4 majority opinion in Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California , holding the U.S. Department of Homeland Security 's (DHS) decision to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program did not properly follow the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Chief Justice Roberts was joined in the majority by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg , Stephen Breyer , Elena Kagan , and Sonia Sotomayor . [53] In the majority opinion, Chief Justice Roberts wrote: [53] Copyright of a state's official annotated code (2019) In Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org Inc. , the Court affirmed the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit , holding "under the government edicts doctrine, officials empowered to speak with the force of law cannot be the authors of the works they create in the course of their official duties." Therefore, "the OCGA annotations are ineligible for copyright protection." [54] Roberts authored the Court's 5-4 majority opinion. He was joined in the majority by Justices Sonia Sotomayor , Elena Kagan , Neil Gorsuch , and Brett Kavanaugh . [54] Tax breaks for religiously-affiliated schools (2019) Roberts authored a 5-4 majority opinion in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue , holding the application of Article X, Section 6 of the Montana Constitution , known as Montana's Blaine Amendment banning the use of public funds for aiding a religious school, violated the free exercise clause of the U.S. Constitution. Chief Justice Roberts was joined in the majority by Justices Clarence Thomas , Samuel Alito , Neil Gorsuch , and Brett Kavanaugh . [55] The chief justice wrote: [55] President's appointment and removal powers (2019) In Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau , the U.S. Supreme Court nullified the 9th Circuit's ruling with a 5-4 vote against the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and sent the case back to the 9th Circuit for further proceedings. Roberts authored the majority opinion, holding that the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)—an independent agency that exercised executive powers and had a director protected from at-will termination by the president—was unconstitutional. Specifically, a majority of the justices ruled that making the director of the CFPB removable by the president alone for inefficiency, neglect, or malfeasance violated the separation of powers. Chief Justice Roberts was joined in the majority by Justices Clarence Thomas , Samuel Alito , Neil Gorsuch , and Brett Kavanaugh . [56] In the opinion of the Court, Roberts wrote: [56] SCOTUS 2018 term (Click to expand) Census citizenship question (2018) See also: Department of Commerce v. New York Roberts authored a 5-4 majority opinion in Department of Commerce v. New York , ruling that the Trump administration 's decision to add a citizenship question to the census did not violate the Enumeration Clause or the Census Act, but that Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross ' rationale for the decision was inconsistent with the administrative record. Roberts was joined in part by the following justices: [57] The justices ruled unanimously in Parts I and II of the decision, which provided background on Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross ' decision to add a citizenship question to the 2020 U.S. Census and affirmed that "at least some" of the respondents in the case had Article III standing. Justices Clarence Thomas , Samuel Alito , Neil Gorsuch , and Brett Kavanaugh joined in Parts III, IV-B, and IV-C. Part III held that the citizenship question did not violate the Enumeration Clause. Part IV-B held that the evidence before Ross supported his decision to add the citizenship question to the census. Part IV-C held that Ross' decision did not violate the Census Act. Justices Clarence Thomas , Ruth Bader Ginsburg , Stephen Breyer , Sonia Sotomayor , Elena Kagan , and Brett Kavanaugh joined in Part IV-A, which ruled that Ross' action was subject to judicial review . Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg , Stephen Breyer , Sonia Sotomayor , and Elena Kagan joined in Part V of the decision, which held that Ross' rationale for adding the citizenship question in order to support enforcement of the Voting Rights Acts was inconsistent with the administrative record. In the Court's opinion, Roberts wrote: [58] “ We do not hold that the agency decision here was substantively invalid. But agencies must pursue their goals reasonably. Reasoned decisionmaking under the Administrative Procedure Act calls for an explanation for agency action. What was provided here was more of a distraction. [46] ” Partisan gerrymandering (2018) See also: Rucho v. Common Cause and Lamone v. Benisek Roberts authored a 5-4 majority opinion in a joint ruling for Rucho v. Common Cause and Lamone v. Benisek . The court ruled that partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions that fall beyond the jurisdiction of the federal judiciary. Roberts was joined in the majority by Justices Clarence Thomas , Samuel Alito , Neil Gorsuch , and Brett Kavanaugh . Roberts wrote: [59] “ Partisan gerrymandering claims rest on an instinct that groups with a certain level of political support should enjoy a commensurate level of political power and influence. Explicitly or implicitly, a districting map is alleged to be unconstitutional because it makes it too difficult for one party to translate statewide support into seats in the legislature. But such a claim is based on a 'norm that does not exist' in our electoral system—'statewide elections for representatives along party lines. ... [Federal] courts are not equipped to apportion political power as a matter of fairness, nor is there any basis for concluding that they were authorized to do so. [46] ” State-litigation requirement from Williamson Cty. Planning v. Hamilton Bank (1985) overruled (2018) See also: Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania Roberts authored a 5-4 majority opinion that overturned the exahustion requirement established in Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City (1985) that a person claiming unlawful taking of their property by a state or local government must first seek all available options for redress in a state court before petitioning a federal court. It found that the requirement conflicted with the San Remo Hotel, L.P. v. City and County of San Francisco (2005) decision 20 years later that held a state court's ruling in such cases precludes any federal judgment, creating a situation where a plaintiff had no opportunity to appeal a taking to the federal government until after it was too late for the federal government to act. Roberts was joined in the majority by Justices Clarence Thomas , Samuel Alito , Neil Gorsuch , and Brett Kavanaugh . Roberts wrote: [60] “ We now conclude that the state-litigation requirement imposes an unjustifiable burden on takings plaintiffs, conflicts with the rest of our takings jurisprudence, and must be overruled. A property owner has an actionable Fifth Amendment takings claim when the government takes his property without paying for it. That does not mean that the government must provide compensation in advance of a taking or risk having its action invalidated: So long as the property owner has some way to obtain compensation after the fact, governments need not fear that courts will enjoin their activities. But it does mean that the property owner has suffered a violation of his Fifth Amendment rights when the government takes his property without just compensation, and therefore may bring his claim in federal court under §1983 at that time. [46] ” Ambiguous agreements cannot provide necessary contractual basis for class arbitration (2018) See also: Lamps Plus Inc. v. Varela Prior to the ruling, Supreme Court precedent under Stolt-Nielsen (2010) "held that a court may not compel classwide arbitration when an agreement is silent on the availability of such arbitration. In Lamps Plus , the Ninth Circuit ruled that Stolt-Nielsen did not apply because the Lamps agreement was ambiguous, not silent, concerning class arbitration." [61] SCOTUS reversed the Ninth Circuit; Chief Justice Roberts authored the 5-4 opinion, holding that "an ambiguous agreement cannot provide the necessary contractual basis for concluding that the parties agreed to submit to class arbitration," under the Federal Arbitration Act. [62] Roberts was joined in the majority by Justices Clarence Thomas , Samuel Alito , Neil Gorsuch , and Brett Kavanaugh . Roberts wrote: [62] “ Courts may not infer from an ambiguous agreement that parties have consented to arbitrate on a classwide basis. The doctrine of contra proferentem cannot substitute for the requisite affirmative “contractual basis for concluding that the part[ies] agreed to [class arbitration].” Stolt-Nielsen , 559 U. S., at 684. We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. [46] ” Census citizenship question (2018) Roberts authored a 5-4 majority opinion in Department of Commerce v. New York , ruling that the Trump administration 's decision to add a citizenship question to the census did not violate the Enumeration Clause or the Census Act, but that Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross ' rationale for the decision was inconsistent with the administrative record. Roberts was joined in part by the following justices: [57] The justices ruled unanimously in Parts I and II of the decision, which provided background on Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross ' decision to add a citizenship question to the 2020 U.S. Census and affirmed that "at least some" of the respondents in the case had Article III standing. Justices Clarence Thomas , Samuel Alito , Neil Gorsuch , and Brett Kavanaugh joined in Parts III, IV-B, and IV-C. Part III held that the citizenship question did not violate the Enumeration Clause. Part IV-B held that the evidence before Ross supported his decision to add the citizenship question to the census. Part IV-C held that Ross' decision did not violate the Census Act. Justices Clarence Thomas , Ruth Bader Ginsburg , Stephen Breyer , Sonia Sotomayor , Elena Kagan , and Brett Kavanaugh joined in Part IV-A, which ruled that Ross' action was subject to judicial review . Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg , Stephen Breyer , Sonia Sotomayor , and Elena Kagan joined in Part V of the decision, which held that Ross' rationale for adding the citizenship question in order to support enforcement of the Voting Rights Acts was inconsistent with the administrative record. In the Court's opinion, Roberts wrote: [58] Partisan gerrymandering (2018) Roberts authored a 5-4 majority opinion in a joint ruling for Rucho v. Common Cause and Lamone v. Benisek . The court ruled that partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions that fall beyond the jurisdiction of the federal judiciary. Roberts was joined in the majority by Justices Clarence Thomas , Samuel Alito , Neil Gorsuch , and Brett Kavanaugh . Roberts wrote: [59] State-litigation requirement from Williamson Cty. Planning v. Hamilton Bank (1985) overruled (2018) Roberts authored a 5-4 majority opinion that overturned the exahustion requirement established in Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City (1985) that a person claiming unlawful taking of their property by a state or local government must first seek all available options for redress in a state court before petitioning a federal court. It found that the requirement conflicted with the San Remo Hotel, L.P. v. City and County of San Francisco (2005) decision 20 years later that held a state court's ruling in such cases precludes any federal judgment, creating a situation where a plaintiff had no opportunity to appeal a taking to the federal government until after it was too late for the federal government to act. Roberts was joined in the majority by Justices Clarence Thomas , Samuel Alito , Neil Gorsuch , and Brett Kavanaugh . Roberts wrote: [60] Ambiguous agreements cannot provide necessary contractual basis for class arbitration (2018) Prior to the ruling, Supreme Court precedent under Stolt-Nielsen (2010) "held that a court may not compel classwide arbitration when an agreement is silent on the availability of such arbitration. In Lamps Plus , the Ninth Circuit ruled that Stolt-Nielsen did not apply because the Lamps agreement was ambiguous, not silent, concerning class arbitration." [61] SCOTUS reversed the Ninth Circuit; Chief Justice Roberts authored the 5-4 opinion, holding that "an ambiguous agreement cannot provide the necessary contractual basis for concluding that the parties agreed to submit to class arbitration," under the Federal Arbitration Act. [62] Roberts was joined in the majority by Justices Clarence Thomas , Samuel Alito , Neil Gorsuch , and Brett Kavanaugh . Roberts wrote: [62] We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. [46] SCOTUS 2014 term (Click to expand) Affordable Care Act tax credits extend to federally created exchanges (2015) See also: King v. Burwell (2015) Under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), state governments were required to establish a marketplace through which residents could purchase health insurance., known as exchanges. If a state failed to create an exchange, the federal government would establish one under the authority of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services . Under the ACA, individuals were required to purchase health insurance or risk paying a penalty on their annual income tax returns unless they qualified for a low-income exemption. To limit the number of individuals faling under the exemption, the ACA authorized tax credits to offset the cost of coverage; however, the statutory language stipulated that the credits were for those who enrolled via exchanges established by state governments. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS), by regulation, extended the tax credits to those who enrolled through a marketplace created by the Department of Health and Human Services. In King v. Burwell (2015), the Court examined the legal question—whether the IRS regulation violated congressional prerogatives under the ACA. [63] Writing for the six-justice majority, Chief Justice John Roberts held that Congress' intent was for the tax credits to go to individuals who signed up for health insurance through the exchanges regardless of whether the exchanges were established by the federal government or a state government: [63] “ In a democracy, the power to make the law rests with those chosen by the people. Our role is more confined—“to say what the law is.” Marbury v. Madison , 1 Cranch 137, 177 (1803). That is easier in some cases than in others. But in every case we must respect the role of the Legislature, and take care not to undo what it has done. A fair reading of legislation demands a fair understanding of the legislative plan. Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them. If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter. Section 36B can fairly be read consistent with what we see as Congress’s plan, and that is the reading we adopt. The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit is Affirmed. [46] ” — Chief Justice John Roberts Affordable Care Act tax credits extend to federally created exchanges (2015) Under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), state governments were required to establish a marketplace through which residents could purchase health insurance., known as exchanges. If a state failed to create an exchange, the federal government would establish one under the authority of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services . Under the ACA, individuals were required to purchase health insurance or risk paying a penalty on their annual income tax returns unless they qualified for a low-income exemption. To limit the number of individuals faling under the exemption, the ACA authorized tax credits to offset the cost of coverage; however, the statutory language stipulated that the credits were for those who enrolled via exchanges established by state governments. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS), by regulation, extended the tax credits to those who enrolled through a marketplace created by the Department of Health and Human Services. In King v. Burwell (2015), the Court examined the legal question—whether the IRS regulation violated congressional prerogatives under the ACA. [63] Writing for the six-justice majority, Chief Justice John Roberts held that Congress' intent was for the tax credits to go to individuals who signed up for health insurance through the exchanges regardless of whether the exchanges were established by the federal government or a state government: [63] Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them. If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter. Section 36B can fairly be read consistent with what we see as Congress’s plan, and that is the reading we adopt. The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit is Affirmed. [46] SCOTUS 2011 term (Click to expand) Affordable Care Act allowed to stand (2012) See also: National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012) In June 2012, Chief Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius , a case challenging the Obama administration 's Affordable Care Act . Challengers to the law argued that the federal government's power under the Commerce Clause was not valid to make individuals purchase a good or service, in this case, healthcare. Roberts agreed with that interpretation. However, he allowed the law to stand on the basis of Congress' authority to levy a tax. [64] }} For a thorough explanation of the federal healthcare act and the challenges it faced in court, see: Obamacare overview . Response Following the ruling, Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) introduced a constitutional amendment that would mandate that every piece of legislation passed by Congress apply to every U.S. citizen and members of the House and Senate equally. In a statement about the legislation, Paul said: [65] “ My amendment says basically that everybody including Justice Roberts — who seems to be such a fan of Obamacare — gets it too. See, right now, Justice Roberts is still continuing to have federal employee health insurance subsidized by the taxpayer. And if he likes Obamacare so much, I’m going to give him an amendment that gives Obamacare to Justice Roberts. [46] ” —Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) In his remarks following the ruling, President Barack Obama (D) said: [66] “ Good afternoon. Earlier today, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act -- the name of the health care reform we passed two years ago. In doing so, they've reaffirmed a fundamental principle that here in America -- in the wealthiest nation on Earth – no illness or accident should lead to any family’s financial ruin. I know there will be a lot of discussion today about the politics of all this, about who won and who lost. That’s how these things tend to be viewed here in Washington. But that discussion completely misses the point. Whatever the politics, today’s decision was a victory for people all over this country whose lives will be more secure because of this law and the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold it. ... The highest Court in the land has now spoken. We will continue to implement this law. And we'll work together to improve on it where we can. But what we won’t do -- what the country can’t afford to do -- is refight the political battles of two years ago, or go back to the way things were. With today’s announcement, it’s time for us to move forward -- to implement and, where necessary, improve on this law. And now is the time to keep our focus on the most urgent challenge of our time: putting people back to work, paying down our debt, and building an economy where people can have confidence that if they work hard, they can get ahead. [46] ” —President Barack Obama (D) Affordable Care Act allowed to stand (2012) In June 2012, Chief Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius , a case challenging the Obama administration 's Affordable Care Act . Challengers to the law argued that the federal government's power under the Commerce Clause was not valid to make individuals purchase a good or service, in this case, healthcare. Roberts agreed with that interpretation. However, he allowed the law to stand on the basis of Congress' authority to levy a tax. [64] }} For a thorough explanation of the federal healthcare act and the challenges it faced in court, see: Obamacare overview . Following the ruling, Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) introduced a constitutional amendment that would mandate that every piece of legislation passed by Congress apply to every U.S. citizen and members of the House and Senate equally. In a statement about the legislation, Paul said: [65] In his remarks following the ruling, President Barack Obama (D) said: [66] I know there will be a lot of discussion today about the politics of all this, about who won and who lost. That’s how these things tend to be viewed here in Washington. But that discussion completely misses the point. Whatever the politics, today’s decision was a victory for people all over this country whose lives will be more secure because of this law and the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold it. ... The highest Court in the land has now spoken. We will continue to implement this law. And we'll work together to improve on it where we can. But what we won’t do -- what the country can’t afford to do -- is refight the political battles of two years ago, or go back to the way things were. With today’s announcement, it’s time for us to move forward -- to implement and, where necessary, improve on this law. And now is the time to keep our focus on the most urgent challenge of our time: putting people back to work, paying down our debt, and building an economy where people can have confidence that if they work hard, they can get ahead. [46] SCOTUS 2006 term (Click to expand) Constitutionality of race-based school assignments (2007) See also: Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1 (2007) In June 2007, Chief Justice Roberts authored the plurality opinion in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1 . At issue was whether it was constitutionally permissible for a public school district to (1) classify students by race and (2) rely upon such racial classifications in making school assignments. Cite error: Closing </ref> missing for <ref> tag The school districts involved voluntarily adopted student assignment plans that relied upon race to determine which public schools certain children may attend. The Seattle, Washington school district classified children as white or nonwhite, while the Jefferson County school district in Louisville, Kentucky classified children as Black or “other.” In Seattle, this racial classification was used to allocate slots in oversubscribed high schools. In Jefferson County, it was used to make certain elementary school assignments and to rule on transfer requests. In each case, the school districts relied upon an individual student's race in assigning them to a particular school so that the racial balance at the school fell within a predetermined range based on the racial composition of the school district as a whole. Parents of students denied assignment to particular schools under these plans solely because of their race filed a lawsuit, challenging the assignment systems allocating children to different public schools on the basis of race for allegedly violating the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of equal protection. [67] [68] Chief Justice Roberts delivered the majority opinion of the Court, writing: [67] [68] “ The school districts in these cases voluntarily adopted student assignment plans that rely upon race to determine which public schools certain children may attend. The Seattle school district classifies children as white or nonwhite; the Jefferson County school district as black or “other.” In Seattle, this racial classification is used to allocate slots in oversubscribed high schools. In Jefferson County, it is used to make certain elementary school assignments and to rule on transfer requests. In each case, the school district relies upon an individual student’s race in assigning that student to a particular school, so that the racial balance at the school falls within a predetermined range based on the racial composition of the school district as a whole. Parents of students denied assignment to particular schools under these plans solely because of their race brought suit, contending that allocating children to different public schools on the basis of race violated the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of equal protection. The Courts of Appeals below upheld the plans. We granted certiorari, and now reverse. ... The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race. [46] ” Constitutionality of race-based school assignments (2007) In June 2007, Chief Justice Roberts authored the plurality opinion in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1 . At issue was whether it was constitutionally permissible for a public school district to (1) classify students by race and (2) rely upon such racial classifications in making school assignments. Cite error: Closing </ref> missing for <ref> tag The school districts involved voluntarily adopted student assignment plans that relied upon race to determine which public schools certain children may attend. The Seattle, Washington school district classified children as white or nonwhite, while the Jefferson County school district in Louisville, Kentucky classified children as Black or “other.” In Seattle, this racial classification was used to allocate slots in oversubscribed high schools. In Jefferson County, it was used to make certain elementary school assignments and to rule on transfer requests. In each case, the school districts relied upon an individual student's race in assigning them to a particular school so that the racial balance at the school fell within a predetermined range based on the racial composition of the school district as a whole. Parents of students denied assignment to particular schools under these plans solely because of their race filed a lawsuit, challenging the assignment systems allocating children to different public schools on the basis of race for allegedly violating the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of equal protection. [67] [68] Chief Justice Roberts delivered the majority opinion of the Court, writing: [67] [68] Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit opinions Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit opinions (Click to expand) Majority opinion in case involving zero-tolerance law at Metrorail station (2004) In the case Hedgepeth v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority , a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that a 12-year-old girl's Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights were not violated by her arrest and juvenile detention for violating a zero-tolerance law against eating or drinking in a Metrorail station. Roberts penned the court's opinion, writing: [69] “ No one is very happy about the events that led to this litigation. A twelve-year-old girl was arrested, searched, and handcuffed. Her shoelaces were removed, and she was transported in the windowless rear compartment of a police vehicle to a juvenile processing center, where she was booked, fingerprinted, and detained until released to her mother some three hours later — all for eating a single french fry in a Metrorail station. The child was frightened, embarrassed, and crying throughout the ordeal. The district court described the policies that led to her arrest as "foolish," and indeed the policies were changed after those responsible endured the sort of publicity reserved for adults who make young girls cry. The question before us, however, is not whether these policies were a bad idea, but whether they violated the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution. Like the district court, we conclude that they did not, and accordingly we affirm. [46] ” Dissenting opinion in case involving Endangered Species Act (2003) In the case Rancho Viejo, LLC. v. Norton (2003), the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit refused to hear an appeal on behalf of Rancho Viejo, LLC, a housing developer whose development project was halted through the Endangered Species Act by the Secretary of the Interior, as it "was likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the arroyo southwestern toad... listed as an endangered species since 1994." [70] The company refused an alternative plan provided by the government and challenged the Act's enforcement. The lawsuit was dismissed . Then-Circuit Judge John Roberts dissented from the denial for a rehearing en banc , writing: [71] “ The panel's approach in this case leads to the result that regulating the taking of a hapless toad that, for reasons of its own, lives its entire life in California constitutes regulating "Commerce ... among the several States." U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8, cl. 3. To be fair, the panel faithfully applied National Association of Home Builders v. Babbitt , 130 F.3d 1041 (D.C.Cir.1997). En banc review is appropriate because the approach of the panel in this case and NAHB now conflicts with the opinion of a sister circuit — a fact confirmed by that circuit's quotation from the NAHB dissent. See GDF Realty , 326 F.3d at 636 (quoting NAHB, 130 F.3d at 1067 (Sentelle, J., dissenting)). Such review would also afford the opportunity to consider alternative grounds for sustaining application of the Act that may be more consistent with Supreme Court precedent. See Rancho Viejo, LLC v. Norton , 323 F.3d at 1067-68 n. 2. [46] ” Later, this dissent was discussed during Roberts' U.S. Supreme Court confirmation hearings. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), "There is a great deal of concern as what this then means for the implication for all environmental law — the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act." [72] Majority opinion in case involving zero-tolerance law at Metrorail station (2004) In the case Hedgepeth v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority , a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that a 12-year-old girl's Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights were not violated by her arrest and juvenile detention for violating a zero-tolerance law against eating or drinking in a Metrorail station. Roberts penned the court's opinion, writing: [69] Dissenting opinion in case involving Endangered Species Act (2003) In the case Rancho Viejo, LLC. v. Norton (2003), the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit refused to hear an appeal on behalf of Rancho Viejo, LLC, a housing developer whose development project was halted through the Endangered Species Act by the Secretary of the Interior, as it "was likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the arroyo southwestern toad... listed as an endangered species since 1994." [70] The company refused an alternative plan provided by the government and challenged the Act's enforcement. The lawsuit was dismissed . Then-Circuit Judge John Roberts dissented from the denial for a rehearing en banc , writing: [71] Later, this dissent was discussed during Roberts' U.S. Supreme Court confirmation hearings. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), "There is a great deal of concern as what this then means for the implication for all environmental law — the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act." [72] About the courts U.S. Supreme Court The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest judicial body in the country and leads the judicial branch of the federal government. It is often referred to by the acronym SCOTUS . [73] The Supreme Court consists of nine justices: the Chief Justice of the United States and eight Associate Justices . The justices are nominated by the president and confirmed with the "advice and consent" of the United States Senate per Article II of the United States Constitution . As federal judges, the justices serve during "good behavior," which means that justices have tenure for life unless they are removed by impeachment and subsequent conviction. [74] The Supreme Court is the only court established by the United States Constitution (in Article III ); all other federal courts are created by Congress . The Supreme Court meets in Washington, D.C. , in the United States Supreme Court building. The Supreme Court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions in mid-June. [74] To read opinions published by this court, click here . U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Senior judges: Harry Edwards , Douglas Ginsburg , Arthur Randolph , Judith Rogers , David Sentelle The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is a federal appellate court with appellate jurisdiction . It hears appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and its rulings may be appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States . This court should not be confused with the District of Columbia Court of Appeals , which is equivalent to a state supreme court in the District of Columbia, or with the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals , whose jurisdiction is limited by subject matter. Appeals are heard in the E. Barrett Prettyman Federal Courthouse in Washington, D.C. Eight judges of the District of Columbia Circuit went on to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States : Fred M. Vinson, Wiley Rutledge, Warren Burger, Ruth Bader Ginsburg , Antonin Scalia , Clarence Thomas , John Roberts , and Brett Kavanaugh . The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has appellate jurisdiction over cases heard by the D.C. Circuit. These cases can include civil and criminal matters that fall under federal law. Appeals of rulings by the D.C. Circuit are petitioned to the Supreme Court of the United States . To read opinions published by this court, click here . The Roberts Court Supreme Court of the United States United States Supreme Court cases and courts Search Google News for this topic U.S. Supreme Court U.S. Supreme Court Biography Biography from the Federal Judicial Center Profile from Oyez Profile from the American Bar Association Profile from the Supreme Court Historical Society U.S. Supreme Court opinions by The Roberts Court ↑ United States Senate , "Supreme Court Nominations, present-1789," archived July 28, 2025 ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 Oyez , "John G. Roberts, Jr.," archived June 20, 2013 ↑ The Atlantic , "Roberts's rules," January 1, 2007

↑ New York Times , "Compromise at the Supreme Court veils its rifts," July 1, 2014 ↑ SCOTUSblog , "Download the SCOTUSblog Stat Pack for the 2024-25 term," archived July 29, 2025 ↑ SCOTUSblog , "How the 2024 term fits into the history of the Roberts court," July 9, 2025 ↑ C-SPAN , “Most important thing for the public to understand is that we are not a political branch of government. They don’t elect us. If they don’t like what we’re doing, it’s just too bad … other than impeachment," October 9, 2009 ↑ AP News , "Chief Justice John Roberts defends legitimacy of court," September 10, 2022 ↑ King v. Burwell (2015) and National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012) ↑ Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1 (2007) ↑ Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (2019) ↑ Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue ↑ Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022) ↑ Allen v. Milligan (2023) ↑ Becerra v. San Carlos Apache Tribe (2024) ↑ Trump v. Barbara (2026) ↑ CNN , "I come with 'no agenda,' Roberts tells hearing," September 13, 2005 ↑ U.S. Senate , "On the Nomination (Confirmation John G. Roberts, Jr., of Maryland, to be Chief Justice of the United States )," September 29, 2005 ↑ 19.0 19.1 19.2 19.3 19.4 The White House - George W. Bush , "Judicial Nominations: Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.," archived December 13, 2012 ↑ 20.0 20.1 20.2 20.3 20.4 Justia , "Chief Justice John Roberts, archived July 31, 2025 ↑ Wargs.com , "Ancestry of John G. Roberts compiled by William Addams Reitwiesner," accessed July 7, 2026 ↑ 22.0 22.1 Oyez , "John G. Roberts, Jr.," accessed July 7, 2026 ↑ La Lumiere "Notable alumni of La Lumiere School," archived March 22, 2014 ↑ New York Times , "Court nominee's life is rooted in faith and respect for law," July 21, 2005 ↑ As of September 2020, La Lumiere School was a coed school. Ballotpedia staff, "Email communication with Brett Balhoff, La Lumiere School science department chair," September 17, 2020 ↑ The Harvard Crimson , "Two alums may be tapped for court," July 8, 2005 ↑ 27.0 27.1 27.2 White House Archives , "Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.," accessed July 7, 2026 ↑ Time , "Bush picks a replacement for Harriet Miers," January 8, 2007 ↑ Hogan & Hartson , "Former Hogan & Hartson partner John G. Roberts, Jr. confirmed as chief justice of the United States," archived October 9, 2008 ↑ Justia , "United States v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435 (1989)," decided May 15, 1989 ↑ Los Angeles Times , "Confirmation path may run through Florida," July 21, 2005 ↑ CNN , "Supreme Court is about to have 3 Bush v. Gore alumni sitting on the bench," October 17, 2020 ↑ The Atlantic , "Roberts's rules," January 1, 2007 ↑ New York Times , "Compromise at the Supreme Court veils its rifts," July 1, 2014 ↑ Politico , "Conservatives blast Roberts as turncoat," June 27, 2019 ↑ SCOTUSBlog , "Final Stat Pack for October Term 2016 and key takeaways," accessed April 16, 2018 ↑ SCOTUSBlog , "Final Stat Pack for October Term 2017 and key takeaways," accessed October 4, 2018 ↑ SCOTUSblog , "Final Stat Pack for the2025-26 Term," July 6, 2026 ↑ 39.0 39.1 Empirical SCOTUS , "2023 Stat Review," July 1, 2024 ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named OT22 ↑ SCOTUSblog , "2020-21 Stat pack: Frequency in the majority," July 2, 2021 ↑ 42.0 42.1 SCOTUSblog, "STAT PACK for the Supreme Court's 2021-22 term," July 1, 2022 ↑ The Supreme Court Database , "Analysis," accessed December 18, 2023 ↑ U.S. Supreme Court , "Trump v. Cook," June 29, 2025 ↑ U.S. Supreme Court , "Perttu v. Richards," June 17, 2025 ↑ 46.00 46.01 46.02 46.03 46.04 46.05 46.06 46.07 46.08 46.09 46.10 46.11 46.12 46.13 46.14 46.15 46.16 46.17 46.18 46.19 46.20 46.21 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source. ↑ 47.0 47.1 U.S. Supreme Court, Becerra v. San Carlos Apache Tribe , decided June 6, 2024 ↑ 48.0 48.1 Supreme Court of the United States, Allen, Alabama Secretary of State, et al. V. Milligan et al. , "Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama," accessed June 8, 2023 ↑ SCOTUSblog , Supreme Court upholds Section 2 of Voting Rights Act , accessed June 8, 2023 ↑ 50.0 50.1 U.S. Supreme Court, Shoop v. Twyford , decided June 21, 2022 ↑ 51.0 51.1 U.S. Supreme Court, PennEast Pipeline Co. v. New Jersey , decided June 29, 2021 ↑ 52.0 52.1 United States Supreme Court, United States v. Arthrex, Inc. , decided June 21, 2021 ↑ 53.0 53.1 U.S. Supreme Court, Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California , decided June 18, 2020 ↑ 54.0 54.1 Supreme Court of the United States, Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org Inc. , decided April 28, 2020 ↑ 55.0 55.1 Supreme Court of the United States, Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue , decided June 30, 2020 ↑ 56.0 56.1 U.S. Supreme Court, " Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ," June 29, 2020 ↑ Supreme Court of the United States , "Department of Commerce v. New York," June 27, 2019 ↑ Supreme Court of the United States , "Department of Commerce v. New York," June 27, 2019 ↑ Supreme Court of the United States , "Rucho v. Common Cause and Lamone v. Benisek: Opinion of the Court," June 27, 2019 ↑ Supreme Court of the United States , "Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, et. al.," decided June 21, 2019 ↑ U.S. Supreme Court, Lamps Plus Inc. v. Varela , decided April 24, 2019 ↑ 62.0 62.1 Supreme Court of the United States, Lamps Plus, Inc., et al. v. Varela , decided April 24, 2019 ↑ 63.0 63.1 U.S. Supreme Court, King v. Burwell , decided June 25, 2015 ↑ SCOTUSblog , "National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius," archived August 8, 2025 ↑ The Atlantic Wire , "Rand Paul wants John Roberts to sign up for Obamacare," October 21, 2013 ↑ Detroit Free Press , "Text of President Obama's remarks on the Supreme Court's health care ruling," June 28, 2012 ↑ 67.0 67.1 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named sea701 ↑ 68.0 68.1 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named seaoyez ↑ U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Hedgepeth v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority , decided October 26, 2004 ↑ United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, Rancho Viejo Llc v. A Norton , decided April 1, 2003 ↑ United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, Rancho Viejo Llc v. A Norton , decided July 22, 2003 ↑ E&E News by POLITICO , "Garland and the case of the ‘hapless toad’," March 17, 2016 ↑ The New York Times , "On Language' Potus and Flotus," October 12, 1997 ↑ 74.0 74.1 SupremeCourt.gov , "A Brief Overview of the Supreme Court," accessed April 20, 2015 Chief justice : Roberts Associate justices: Alito • Barrett • Gorsuch • Jackson • Kagan • Kavanaugh • Sotomayor • Thomas Breyer • Kennedy • Souter Burger • Chase • Ellsworth • Fuller • Hughes • Jay • Marshall • Rehnquist • Rutledge • Stone • Taft • Taney • Vinson • Waite • Warren • O'Connor • Baldwin • Barbour • Black • Blackmun • Blair • Blatchford • Bradley • Brandeis • Brennan • Brewer • Brown • Burton • Butler • Byrnes • Campbell • Cardozo • Catron • Chase • Clark • Clarke • Clifford • Curtis • Cushing • Daniel • Davis • Day • Douglas • Duvall • Field • Fortas • Frankfurter • Ginsburg • Goldberg • Gray • Grier • Harlan I • Harlan II • Holmes • Hunt • Iredell • H. Jackson • R. Jackson • T. Johnson • W. Johnson, Jr. • J. Lamar • L. Lamar • Livingston • Lurton • Marshall • Matthews • McKenna • McKinley • McLean • McReynolds • Miller • Minton • Moody • Moore • Murphy • Nelson • Paterson • Peckham • Pitney • Powell • Reed • Roberts • W. Rutledge • Sanford • Scalia • Shiras • Stevens • Stewart • Story • Strong • Sutherland • Swayne • Thompson • Todd • Trimble • Van Devanter • Washington • Wayne • B. White • Whittaker • Wilson • Woodbury • Woods Chief Judge : Srikanth Srinivasan • Karen Henderson • Robert Leon Wilkins • Patricia Ann Millett • Cornelia T. L. Pillard • Greg Katsas • Neomi Rao • Justin Walker (U.S. Court of Appeals) • J. Michelle Childs • Florence Pan • Bradley Garcia David Sentelle • Douglas Ginsburg • Harry Edwards • Arthur Randolph • William Cranch • Richard Henry Alvey • Seth Shepard • Constantine Joseph Smyth • Duncan Groner • George Ewing Martin • Harold Montelle Stephens • Henry Edgerton • David Sentelle • Douglas Ginsburg • Harry Edwards • Spottswood Robinson • Wilbur Miller • David Bazelon • Carl McGowan • Abner Mikva • Elijah Prettyman • Patricia Wald • James Wright (Louisiana) • Merrick Garland • Armijo • Bates • Beistline • Blackburn • Bowdre • Bunning • Bury • Caldwell • Camp • Cassell • Cebull • Clement • Clifton • Crane • Eagan • Engelhardt • Friot • Gibbons • Granade • Gregory • Gritzner • Haddon • Hartz • Heaton • Hicks • Howard • Johnson • Jorgenson • Krieger • Land • Leon • Mahan • Martinez • Martone • McConnell • Melloy • Mills • O'Brien • Parker • Payne • Prost • Reeves • Riley • Robinson • Rogers • Royal • Shedd • B. Smith • L. Smith • Walton • Wooten • Zainey Africk • Anderson • Autrey • Baylson • Cercone • Chesler • Clark • Collyer • Conner • Conti • Corrigan • Davis • Davis • Dorr • England • Ericksen • Fuller • Gardner • Godbey • Griesbach • Hanen • Hovland • Hudson • Jones • Jordan • Kinkeade • Klausner • Kugler • Leighton • Linares • Moses • Marra • Martinez • Martini • Mays • McVerry • Phillips • Raggi • Reade • Rose • Rufe • Savage • Schwab • Smith • St. Eve • Walter • White • Wolfson Adams • Altonaga • Bea • Benitez • Bennett • Boyle • Brack • Breen • Browning • Burns • Bybee • Callahan • Campbell • Cardone • Carney • Castel • Chertoff • Cohn • Colloton • Conrad • Coogler • Cook • Cooke • Crone • Der-Yeghiayan • Drell • Duffey • Duncan • Erickson • Feuerstein • Figa • Filip • Fischer • Fisher • Flanagan • Floyd • Frost • Gibson • Greer • Gruender • Guirola • Hall • Hardiman • Hayes • Herrera • Hicks • Holmes • Holwell • Hopkins • Houston • Irizarry • Jones • Junell • Karas • Kravitz • Martinez • McKnight • Minaldi • Montalvo • Mosman • Otero • Pickering • Prado • Pratter • Proctor • Quarles • Robart • Roberts • Robinson • Rodgers • Rodriguez • Sabraw • Sanchez • Saylor • Selna • Sharpe • Simon • Springmann • Stanceu • Steele • Stengel • Suko • Sutton • Sykes • Titus • Townes • Tymkovich • Van Antwerpen • Varlan • Wake • Wesley • White • Woodcock • Alvarez • Benton • Boyko • Covington • Diamond • Harwell • Kelley • Schiavelli • Schneider • Starrett • Watson Alito • Barrett • Batten • Bianco • Brown • Burgess • Conrad • Cox • Crotty • Delgado-Colon • Dever • DuBose • Griffin • Griffith • Johnston • Kendall • Larson • Ludington • Mattice • McKeague • Neilson • Owen • Pryor • Roberts • Sandoval • Schiltz • Seabright • Smoak • Van Tatenhove • Vitaliano • Watkins • Zouhary Besosa • Bumb • Chagares • Cogan • Gelpi • Golden • Gordon • Gorsuch • Guilford • Hillman • Holmes • Ikuta • D. Jordan • K. Jordan • Kavanaugh • Miller • Moore • Shepherd • Sheridan • Smith • Whitney • Wigenton Anderson • Aycock • Bailey • Bryant • Davis • DeGiusti • Dow • Elrod • Fairbank • Fischer • Frizzell • Gutierrez • Hall • Hardiman • Haynes • Howard • Jarvey • Jones • Jonker • Kapala • Kays • Laplante • Limbaugh • Lioi • Livingston • Maloney • Mauskopf • Mendez • Miller • Neff • O'Connor • O'Grady • O'Neill • Osteen • Ozerden • Reidinger • Sammartino • Schroeder • Settle • Smith • Snow • Southwick • Suddaby • Sullivan • Thapar • Tinder • Van Bokkelen • Wood • Wright • Wu Agee • Anello • Arguello • Brimmer • Gardephe • Goldberg • Jones • Kethledge • Lawrence • Matsumoto • Melgren • Murphy • Scriven • Seibel • Slomsky • Trenga • Waddoups • White Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function Appointed by George W. Bush Article III judiciary nominee Current, Justice of the United States Supreme Court District of Columbia Federal Article III judges Federal judiciary nominee, January 2003 Federal judiciary nominee, July 2005 Federal judiciary nominee, September 2005 Retired judges, September 2005 Returned nominee 2005 United States of America Former federal judge, District of Columbia Circuit Former Article III judges Enhanced introduction Pages with reference errors Ballotpedia features 708,408 encyclopedic articles written and curated by our professional staff of editors, writers, and researchers. Click here to contact our editorial staff or report an error . For media inquiries, contact us here . Please donate here to support our continued expansion. Information about voting What's on my ballot? Where do I vote? How do I register to vote? How do I request a ballot? When do I vote? When are polls open? Who Represents Me? 2026 Election results State executives State legislatures State ballot measures Municipal officials Other local officials Local ballot measures Congress special elections State executives State legislatures State ballot measures Municipal officials Local ballot measures Election analysis 2026 Elections analysis hub 2026 Mid-year recall report 2026 Primary election competitiveness in state and federal government 2026 State legislative competitiveness report 2026 Ballot measures Tuesday count 2026 Uncontested elections Elections calendar Redistricting ahead of the 2026 elections Donald Trump's Cabinet Education policy on Ballotpedia Ballotpedia News Policy in the states Administrative state Criminal justice policy Education policy Environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG) Unemployment insurance Work requirements Information for candidates Ballotpedia's Candidate Survey How do I run for office? How do I update a page? Election results Send us candidate contact info Donate to Ballotpedia Report an error Ballotpedia Podcast Ballotpedia Boutique Media inquiries Additional analysis Election legislation tracking State Supreme Court Partisanship Polling indexes Privacy Manager SITE NAVIGATION Read today's Daily Brew 2026 Elections 2026 Election results 2026 Congressional elections 2026 State executive elections 2026 State legislative elections 2026 State judge elections 2026 State ballot measures 2026 Municipal elections 2026 School board elections 2026 Other local elections 2026 Local ballot measures Primary election types by state Redistricting 2026 Election results 2026 Congressional elections 2026 State executive elections 2026 State legislative elections 2026 State judge elections 2026 State ballot measures 2026 Municipal elections 2026 School board elections 2026 Other local elections 2026 Local ballot measures Primary election types by state Ballotpedia's in-depth analysis Ballotpedia's Election Analysis Hub, 2026 Ballotpedia's mid-year recall report, 2026 Uncontested elections in 2026 Trifecta vulnerability in 2026 2026 Ballot measures Tuesday count 2026 Primary election competitiveness in state and federal government 2026 Stage legislative competitiveness report Ballotpedia's Election Analysis Hub, 2026 Ballotpedia's mid-year recall report, 2026 Uncontested elections in 2026 Trifecta vulnerability in 2026 2026 Ballot measures Tuesday count 2026 Primary election competitiveness in state and federal government 2026 Stage legislative competitiveness report 2027 Elections 2027 Congressional special elections 2027 State executive elections 2027 State legislative elections 2027 State judge elections 2027 State ballot measures 2027 Mayoral elections 2027 Municipal elections 2027 School board elections 2027 Local ballot measures Primary election types by state 2027 Congressional special elections 2027 State executive elections 2027 State legislative elections 2027 State judge elections 2027 State ballot measures 2027 Mayoral elections 2027 Municipal elections 2027 School board elections 2027 Local ballot measures Primary election types by state The Trump administration Donald Trump's Cabinet Judicial nominations Executive orders and actions Key legislation Vetoes Donald Trump's Cabinet Judicial nominations Executive orders and actions Key legislation Government U.S. President U.S. Congress U.S. Supreme Court Federal courts State government Ballot measures Municipal government School boards Recalls U.S. Supreme Court State government Ballot measures Municipal government Education policy on Ballotpedia Public policy Administrative state Criminal justice policy Education policy Environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG) Federalism Unemployment insurance Work requirements Policy in the states Administrative state Criminal justice policy Education policy Environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG) Unemployment insurance Work requirements Policy in the states More... Ballotpedia's Sample Ballot Ballotpedia’s Voter Toolkit Ballotpedia's Candidate Survey Redistricting Trifectas Election policy Running for office Election legislation tracking Ballotpedia's weekly podcast Ballotpedia's Sample Ballot Ballotpedia’s Voter Toolkit Ballotpedia's Candidate Survey Election policy Running for office Election legislation tracking Ballotpedia's weekly podcast About us About Ballotpedia Donate Buy Political Data Editorial independence Index Job opportunities News and events Staff Volunteer About Ballotpedia Buy Political Data Editorial independence Job opportunities News and events About Ballotpedia