CNN —
From the moment he was confirmed in 2005, Chief Justice John Roberts made it his mission to separate the Supreme Court from the political branch. But the court is perhaps more embroiled in politics than ever before, and that too at the hands of the chief justice himself.
The former star appellate lawyer, once chosen by allies as the smartest person in the room, remains perplexed by the reality of Donald Trump.
Mr. Roberts was shaken by the adverse public reaction to his decision to grant Mr. Trump broad immunity from criminal prosecution. His protests that the incident was about the president, not Trump, meant little.
Unlike most justices, he did not speak publicly during the summer. Colleagues and friends who saw him said he seemed particularly exhausted, like he was carrying more weight on his shoulders. After taking the bench to officially start the new session on Monday, Roberts followed a familiar script and refrained from any emotion.
These are difficult times for the U.S. Supreme Court, with a series of divisive decisions and ongoing controversy over the lack of an enforceable ethics code for judges.
Roberts, who turns 70 in January, faces a new slate of major cases to be heard in the coming months, including battles over transgender rights, gun control, the death penalty and a possible reinstatement of the Trump lawsuit. I am doing it. But perhaps the more significant immediate test of Roberts’ leadership will be the lawsuit over the Nov. 5 presidential election and vote counting.
The Roberts court is aligned with the Republican political agenda largely because of decisions the chief justice has written on behalf of Trump and other Republicans. Opposes voting rights and affirmative action. Opposes federal regulation of environmental, public health, and consumer issues.
Roberts’ pattern of prioritizing Republican interests is echoed in 2013’s Shelby County v. Holder, which watered down parts of the Voting Rights Act, and 2019’s Lucho v. Common Cause, in which U.S. courts flexed political party lines. This was established by his rulings in cases such as “Preventing an Injunction from Activities.” gerrymander voting districts to their advantage).
However, the ruling by the judges in the trial against former President Trump on charges of election interference from 2020 deepened the political tone. The court case dragged on even before the July 1 ruling, making it certain that a trial would not take place before Trump runs for office again. He currently faces Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris in the White House.
According to multiple opinion polls, the Supreme Court’s standing is declining. For example, a Pew Research Center survey found that fewer than half of Americans (47%) expressed a favorable opinion of the court after President Trump’s immunity decision was announced in July and the annual session ended. It was.
This favorability rating was 23 points lower than in August 2020, when a conservative supermajority was established on the nine-member bench. Part of this decline undoubtedly tracks with the court’s 2022 ruling overturning abortion rights, which Roberts partially dissented from.
Reactions predictably varied depending on people’s politics. Pew reported that Republicans had a much more favorable view of the Supreme Court than Democrats.
As a new term begins and new election litigation looms, the question is whether Mr. Roberts will strengthen his conservatism or recalibrate as before. In 2020, for example, he hedged his opposition to abortion rights and retreated from his earlier sentiments against undocumented protections for certain immigrant families during the Obama era.
He clearly has his legacy in mind.
“You wonder if you’re going to be John Marshall or Roger Taney,” Roberts told a law school audience in 2010, recalling the great 19th century chief justice and 1857 Dredd.・He referred to the latter chief justice who wrote the Scott Law. A ruling declaring that slaves were not citizens. “The answer is, of course, you’ll never be John Marshall. But you don’t want to risk becoming Roger Taney.”
Roberts declined CNN’s request for an interview.
President Trump, who faces criminal charges pending over his 2020 efforts to overturn the valid results that gave Joe Biden the White House, has already told a series of lies this term about state voting rules and other election procedures. . One of his particularly bold lies was declaring that he would only hit Harris if he cheated.
Dozens of lawsuits brought by Republicans challenging the state’s election practices are being heard in lower courts. If a truly significant case arises in the Trump-Harris battle, judges will likely be forced to make quick decisions under tight deadlines.
The possibility of Bush v. Gore is hanging over the court again. In a 2000 lawsuit over which candidate would win Florida’s crucial electoral votes, the court ruled in favor of then-Texas Governor George W. Bush over then-Vice President Al Gore. handed down a judgment. The 5-4 ruling was along the justices’ ideological, if not political, lines.
Mr. Roberts served in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, was in private practice at the time, and assisted the George W. Bush administration’s legal team. After Bush occupied the White House, he appointed Roberts to the U.S. Court of Appeals. In 2005, he elevated Roberts to the Supreme Court to replace William Rehnquist, for whom Roberts had previously worked.
In an early interview, Roberts told C-SPAN: They didn’t choose us. If they don’t like what we’re doing, that’s more or less unfortunate. ”
In 2018, when Justice Roberts attempted to rebut President Trump’s disparaging comments about federal judges, the Supreme Court justice declared, “We don’t have an Obama Justice, we don’t have a Trump Justice,” and rather, “We don’t have a full-time judge in sight.” We are doing our best to provide equal rights to the judges who appear before us.” ”
President Trump retorted on the same day, saying, “Chief Justice John Roberts, I’m sorry, but we do have ‘Obama Judges’ who have a very different perspective than the people who are in charge of our nation’s security.”
The November 2018 clash, sparked by a dispute over federal asylum policy, showed President Trump was prepared to overwhelm his perceived adversary. Roberts said nothing further about Trump at the time and has since avoided similar public accusations.
In an era of increasing polarization and public distrust of government, Roberts clearly does not live in the world he envisioned when he first took the seat.
Although he was gaining control over the court’s most important ruling, his ability to persuade the public was waning, as evidenced by his response to Trump’s immunity suit.
Special Counsel Jack Smith has accused President Trump of engaging in multiple crimes to remain in office, including lying to state officials and ignoring the true vote count, That includes trying to organize the state’s electoral rolls and leading a mob to march on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6. Election results will be certified in 2021.
Roberts, along with five of his fellow conservatives, acknowledged that former presidents have a right to presumed, if not absolute, immunity for acts related to their official duties. Roberts’ views on public conduct, in contrast to private conduct, were expansive.
But the chief justice said such a sweep was important to protect the president’s office. …Our perspective needs to be more forward-looking. ”
The dissenting justices argued that the majority’s reasoning flies in the face of established precedent for holding presidents accountable.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote for the liberal dissent that “by relying on false wisdom about the need for “bold and unflinching action” by the president, the court did not allow former President Trump to do what he called for. “We have granted them all immunity and privileges.”
Law professors denounced the majority’s reasoning, and Princeton University history professor Sean Wilentz went so far as to compare the decision to the Dred Scott case in an op-ed in the New York Review of Books. He declared that Trump vs. the United States is “the most far-reaching judicial restructuring in the history of the American presidency.”
Roberts’ former law clerks have defended him to varying degrees. “I think a lot of the reactions to this decision are a little overblown,” said Erin Murphy, an attorney now in private practice.
In a recent session at the Georgetown University Law Center, she said, “The Trump immunity case is less about Trump than it is about not opening the door to ‘successive administrations’ that come after the presidents.” .
Roman Martinez, also a former clerk in Roberts’ appellate office, said the decision was more liberal than widely interpreted.
New evidence regarding Trump’s alleged reaction to learning of Pence’s danger on January 6th
“There is ambiguity about the scope of immunity,” he said. “There are question marks on different sides of the opinion as to what that means. … We haven’t seen the end yet.”
Smith has amended his indictment to emphasize the informal nature of Trump’s campaign efforts in the last election and is now arguing that the case can proceed before U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan. What parts of Smith’s indictment could Mr. Chutkan bring to trial without violating a court decision that declared former presidents immune from prosecution for public acts, but not private acts? will be decided.
Last week, Chutkan released Smith’s 165-page motion seeking immunity for Trump’s actions to overturn the 2020 election results. Smith argued that Trump’s objections to the results stemmed from his personal actions as a candidate desperate to retain the White House.
Harvard Law School professor Richard Lazarus, a longtime friend of Roberts, spent time with him in July, shortly after Trump’s decision was issued. They taught together in Galway, Ireland, as part of the New England Law Boston Program.
In an August essay for the Washington Post, Lazarus said Roberts’ opinion “provides a surprisingly clear roadmap for a successful prosecution of Trump.”
“The conclusion is clear,” Lazarus wrote. “Whether you’re outraged or sympathetic to the Supreme Court’s stunningly sweeping ruling on presidential immunity, it still leaves the former president very vulnerable to felony prosecution.”
Whether that happens is out of Roberts and the Supreme Court’s hands at this point, as Chutkan considers a new application. And maybe Trump’s case is more truly in the hands of voters.
