Chief Justice Roberts Adjusts Role Amid Supreme Court Shifts

WASHINGTON – Chief Justice John Roberts has occupied varied institutional positions on the Supreme Court since his appointment, with a notable shift in his approach observed in recent years. This evolution in his role intensified after 2020.

Before 2020, particularly after Justice Anthony Kennedy’s retirement in 2018, Roberts often served as a swing justice. Throughout his first 14 years on the bench, his conduct aligned with a conservative institutionalist stance, balancing conservative principles with a focus on judicial restraint and stability.

Examples from this period include his unexpected vote to uphold the Affordable Care Act in 2012’s *NFIB v. Sebelius*. He also cast a key vote against the Trump administration's attempt to add a citizenship question to the census in 2019’s *Department of Commerce v. New York*.

The dynamic of the court changed significantly with Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s appointment in 2020, which created a six-justice conservative voting bloc. This shift moved Roberts from the court’s median vote, placing five justices to his right.

Between 2020 and 2022, Roberts continued to vote as a moderate or institutionalist conservative. In cases such as 2021’s *Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson* and 2022’s *Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health*, he diverged from the five-justice conservative majority opinions, aligning partly with the court’s liberal justices.

By approximately 2023, Roberts adopted a different strategy. He began to moderate or slow down his conservative colleagues when feasible, a strategy described as "moderating from the front." He also joined the conservative majority in other cases. This approach involves utilizing his power to assign majority opinions when he is part of the majority.

This strategy is evident in cases like *Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard* (2023), where Roberts authored the majority opinion striking down affirmative action in college admissions.

In the 2024 presidential immunity decision, *Trump v. United States*, Roberts authored a majority opinion. This opinion, while joined by most conservatives, did not have the full support of Justice Barrett on specific sections. The opinion included reservations, leading to a complex interpretation. Observers note that these ambiguities may stem from internal tensions and Roberts' efforts to maintain a majority while introducing nuance.

Commentators have suggested Roberts’ actions may serve to influence the court’s jurisprudence from within the majority, rather than through dissenting opinions. This involves injecting elements of ambiguity and restraint into the court’s decision-making. In 2023, for example, he authored the majority opinion in *Allen v. Milligan*, which sustained majority-minority districting, but later joined an opinion in *Louisiana v. Callais* effectively re-evaluating that precedent.