Chief Justice John Roberts on May 7 emphasized the importance of maintaining the judiciary’s independence as a check on government power during a visit to his birthplace of Buffalo, New York.
Roberts, who presides over Supreme Court arguments and oversees the federal judiciary, was participating in an on-stage conversation with U.S. District Judge Lawrence Vilardo amid the 125th anniversary of the federal district court in western New York.
Judicial independence is “the only real political-science innovation in our Constitution,” Roberts said.
In places like England, where the parliament has existed for 800 years, the judiciary is not independent because it is part of the Parliament. Judges “sat in the House of Lords because Parliament was supreme,” he said.
“But in our Constitution … the judiciary is a co-equal branch of government, separate from the others, with the authority to interpret the Constitution as law and strike down … acts of Congress or acts of the president.”
“And that innovation doesn’t work if … the judiciary is not independent. Its job is to … check the excesses of Congress or of the executive, and that does require a degree of independence,” the chief justice said to applause from the audience.
The comments from Roberts, who became chief justice in 2005 after being nominated by President George W. Bush, came after President Donald Trump, members of his administration, and Republicans in Congress, have repeatedly criticized court rulings in recent months that have blocked or delayed the president’s agenda.
Roberts did not mention Trump or other officeholders who have criticized judges’ rulings by name.
Roberts’s latest remarks also echoed his public statement from March 18 in which he appeared to be reacting to Trump’s call to impeach a federal judge who blocked deportations of members of a Venezuelan gang implemented under a presidential proclamation.
At the May 7 gathering, Roberts said, “Impeachment is not how you register disagreement with [judicial] decisions.”
“That’s what we’re there for,” he said, in reference to the appeals process.
Vilardo said the current Supreme Court has received much criticism for overturning its own precedents. He gave the example of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022), which overruled Roe v. Wade and returned the regulation of abortion to the states.
“But that happens all the time, right?” the judge said.
Roberts said, “there’s a lot of misconception on that subject.”
When Earl Warren was chief justice from 1953 to 1969, Roberts said the Supreme Court overruled 3.2 decisions on average each year. When Warren Burger presided from 1969 to 1986, the average was 3.6 decisions a year, he said.
When William Rehnquist was chief justice from 1986 to 2005, the figure dropped to 2.4 cases a year on average, he said.
Over the last 20 years, while he has served as chief justice, the number has fallen to an average of 1.6 cases a year, Roberts said.
People have a “somewhat wrong view of how many cases are being overturned,” he said.
“A lot of people talk as if we’re overruling a lot more. It’s the lowest it’s been since the 50s.”
“The idea that it’s invariably a bad thing to overrule precedent is … quite mistaken,” Roberts added.
Vilardo said that many decisions Roberts makes through interpreting the Constitution have “real-life consequences.”
For example, Second Amendment decisions “result in more people having guns,” an Obamacare decision “resulted in more people having health insurance,” and Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) “resulted in more same-sex marriages,” Vilardo said.
“Do you think about those practical consequences when you’re interpreting the Constitution, and should justices think about those practical consequences when they’re interpreting the words of the Constitution?” the judge asked.
Roberts said, “mainly no to both of those questions because if you do that … you’re kind of putting yourself in the place of the legislator.”
You can argue Second Amendment decisions lead to more people having guns and more accidental shootings, but you can also argue that if there is a foreign invasion, such as Britain’s invasion of the United States soon after the amendment was adopted, Americans will be in a better position, the chief justice said.
If you decide cases based on your view of what you consider to be best, “you would be substituting your own view for that of the people who wrote the Constitution, so no, I don’t think that’s … a big part of, at least, how I do my job,” he said.
What you “really need to be doing is sitting down and reading it … in its appropriate context, and trying to figure out … what they meant.”
Jackson seemed to be responding to Trump’s criticisms of some judges, although she did not specifically mention Trump during her speech at a judicial conference in Puerto Rico and instead spoke about “the elephant in the room.”
“The attacks are not random. They seem designed to intimidate those of us who serve in this critical capacity,” Jackson said.
“The threats and harassment are attacks on our democracy, on our system of government. And they ultimately risk undermining our Constitution and the rule of law.”
Jackson took her seat on the high court in June 2022 after being nominated by President Joe Biden.
