John roberts age
John Roberts
Chief Justice of the United States since
For other people named John Roberts, see John Roberts (disambiguation).
John Roberts | |
|---|---|
Official portrait, | |
Incumbent | |
| Assumed office September 29, | |
| Nominated by | George W.
Bush |
| Preceded by | William Rehnquist |
| In office June 2, &#;– September 29, | |
| Nominated by | George W. Bush |
| Preceded by | James L. Buckley |
| Succeeded by | Patricia Millett |
| In office October 24, &#;– January 20, | |
| President | George H.
W. Bush |
| Preceded by | Donald B. Ayer |
| Succeeded by | Paul Bender |
| In office November 28, &#;– April 11, | |
| President | Ronald Reagan |
| Preceded by | J. Michael Luttig[1] |
| Succeeded by | Robert Kruger[2] |
| Born | John Glover Roberts Jr. () January 27, (age&#;69) Buffalo, New York, U.S. |
| Spouse | Jane Sullivan &#; (m.&#;)&#; |
| Children | 2 (adopted) |
| Education | Harvard University (BA, JD) |
| Awards | Henry J.
Friendly Medal () |
| Signature | |
John Glover Roberts Jr. (born January 27, ) is an American jurist serving since as the 17thchief justice of the United States. He has been described as having a moderate conservativejudicial philosophy, though he is primarily an institutionalist.[3][4] Regarded as a swing vote in some cases,[5] Roberts has presided over an ideological shift toward conservative jurisprudence on the high court, in which he has authored key opinions.[6][7]
Born in Buffalo, New York, Roberts was raised Catholic in Northwest Indiana and studied at Harvard University with the initial intent to become a historian, graduating in three years with highest distinction, then attended Harvard Law School, where he was an editor of the Harvard Law Review. Before holding positions in the Reagan and senior Bush administration, Roberts served as a law clerk for Judge Henry Friendly and Justice William Rehnquist.
From to , he was Principal Deputy Solicitor General, after which he built a leading appellate practice and argued 39 cases before the Supreme Court.
In , President George H. W. Bush nominated Roberts to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, but the Senate did not hold a vote on his confirmation. In , President George W.
Bush appointed Roberts to the D.C. Circuit. In , Bush nominated Roberts to the Supreme Court, initially as an associate justice to fill the vacancy left by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, but promoted him to chief justice after Rehnquist's death. Roberts was confirmed by a Senate vote of 78–22, becoming the youngest to serve in the position since John Marshall.[9]
As chief justice, Roberts has authored majority opinions in many landmark cases, including National Federation of Independent Business v.
Sebelius (upholding most sections of the Affordable Care Act), Shelby County v. Holder (limiting the Voting Rights Act of ), Trump v.
Hawaii (expanding presidential powers over immigration), Carpenter v. United States (expanding digital privacy), Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (overruling race-based admission programs), and Trump v. United States (outlining the extent of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution). Roberts also presided over the first impeachment trial of President Donald Trump.
Early life and education
Roberts was born on January 27, , in Buffalo, New York, to Rosemary (née Podrasky) and John Glover "Jack" Roberts Sr., both devout Catholics. His father had Irish and Welsh ancestry and his mother was a descendant of Slovak immigrants from Szepes, Hungary. He has two younger sisters, Margaret and Barbara, and an elder sister, Kathy.
Roberts spent his early childhood years in Hamburg, New York, where his father worked as an electrical engineer for the Bethlehem Steel Corporation's factory in Lackawanna.
In , ten-year-old Roberts and his family moved to Long Beach, Indiana, where his father became the manager of a new steel plant in nearby Burns Harbor.[14] By age 13, Roberts "already had a clear plan for his life." He attended the parochial La Lumiere School,[16] an academically rigorous Catholic boarding school in La Porte, Indiana, where he captained the school's football team, participated in track and field, and was a regional champion in wrestling.
He also participated in choir and drama, and was a co-editor of the school newspaper.[14] He graduated in as class valedictorian, becoming the first graduate of the La Lumiere School to enroll at Harvard University.
At Harvard College, Roberts dedicated himself to studying history, his academic major.
He had entered Harvard as a sophomore with second-year standing based on his academic achievements in high school. Roberts first roomed in Straus Hall before moving to Leverett House.[20] Every summer, he returned home to work at the steel plant his father managed.[14] Although he initially felt obscured among other students, Roberts distinguished himself with professors, meriting multiple distinctions for his scholarly writing.
He gained a reputation as a serious student who valued formalism.[20] Every Sunday, he attended Catholic Mass at St. Paul Church.
As an undergraduate, Roberts excelled academically.[14] He focused on modern European history and maintained an interest in politics.
In his first year, he won the university's Edwards Whitaker Scholarship for outstanding scholastic achievement. He intended to pursue a Ph.D. in history to be a professor but also contemplated a legal career. One of Roberts's first papers, "Marxism and Bolshevism: Theory and Practice," won Harvard's William Scott Ferguson Prize for the most outstanding essay by a sophomore history major.
An early interest in oral advocacy also led him to study Daniel Webster, a prominent advocate before the Supreme Court. His senior year paper, "The Utopian Conservative: A Study of Continuity and Change in the Thought of Daniel Webster," won a Bowdoin Prize.[26]
In , Roberts obtained his Bachelor of Arts degree in history, summa cum laude, with membership in Phi Beta Kappa.
A recent surplus of history graduate students convinced him to attend Harvard Law School for better career prospects, though he maintained his original goal to become a professor.[a] His first-year performance in law school placed him in the top 15 students in a class of and won him membership on the Harvard Law Review.
John roberts supreme court biography religion In the fourth grade, he and his family moved to Long Beach, Ind. During his tenure as chief justice, Roberts has struck down voting rights protections provided by the Voting Rights Act. Chief justices. Topic: Gun Rights.The journal's president, David Leebron, chose Roberts as its managing editor, despite their differing political views.[b] Classmate David Wilkins described Roberts as "more conservative than the typical Harvard Law student in the s" but well-liked by fellow students.[20] In , Roberts graduated at the top of his class with a Juris Doctor, magna cum laude, despite having to admit himself to a local hospital for exhaustion.
He later regretted that during his time at Harvard, he traveled into Boston on only a couple of occasions, being too preoccupied with his studies.[30]
Early legal career
After graduating from law school, Roberts was a law clerk for Judge Henry Friendly,[c] one of the most influential judges of the century, at the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit from to [32] Friendly was impressed by Roberts's performance; they shared similar backgrounds, and co-clerk Reinier Kraakman recalled that "there was a bond between them." When Roberts became a federal judge years later, he identified with Friendly's nonpartisan approach to law and maintained a correspondence with him.[d] After finishing his clerkship at the Second Circuit in May, Roberts went to clerk for Justice (later Chief Justice) William Rehnquist at the U.S.
Supreme Court from to [14]
At the end of his clerkship with Rehnquist, Roberts worked to gain admission to the bar, studying with Michael W. McConnell, a law clerk of Justice William Brennan. After the presidential election, he resolved to work under the new Reagan administration. Rehnquist recommended him to Ken Starr, who was chief of staff to attorney general William French Smith, and Roberts was named a special assistant to the attorney general.
After being admitted to the District of Columbia bar and arriving to the Department of Justice in August , he helped Sandra Day O'Connor prepare for her confirmation hearings.[e]
As an assistant to the attorney general, Roberts concentrated on the scope of the Voting Rights Act of , especially Section 2 and Section 5, both of which Roberts and other Reagan lawyers believed to have unnecessarily intruded on state regulations.
He wrote to Friendly, "this is an exciting time to be at the Justice Department, when so much that has been taken for granted for so long is being seriously reconsidered." Among those he worked with were William Bradford Reynolds in the Civil Rights Division, former classmate Richard Lazarus, J. Harvie Wilkinson III, Theodore Olson, and fellow special assistant Carolyn Kuhl.
In , Reagan advisor Fred Fielding recruited Roberts to work at the White House.
Fielding gathered a group of lawyers that also included J. Michael Luttig and Henry Garrett.[43] From to , Roberts was an associate with the White House Counsel.[14] He then entered private practice in Washington, D.C., as an associate at the law firm Hogan & Hartson (now Hogan Lovells), working in corporate law.[44]E.
Barrett Prettyman, under whom he was first assigned, was one of the most prominent advocates in the country along with Rex E. Lee. Roberts also built a successful practice as an appellate lawyer,[16] heading the firm's division for appellate advocacy.[46] He made his first appearance before the Supreme Court in United States v.
Halper, arguing against the government, and the Court unanimously upheld his arguments.
Appellate advocacy
In , Ken Starr relinquished his judgeship on the D.C. Circuit to become U.S. Solicitor General under President George H. W. Bush. Needing a deputy, Starr chose Roberts to join the administration as Principal Deputy Solicitor General.[49] "I felt that his experience was good for the political deputy position.
[Roberts] was a steady hand, a wise hand. He came in as a person not of vast experience but of vast ability," Starr recalled. With the new appointment, Roberts, whose work had previously been confidential, became a prominent figure at the Supreme Court, leading the filings of the Bush administration and representing it in the media.
As deputy solicitor general, Roberts frequently appeared before the Supreme Court.
He argued for a number of conservative positions, including those against abortion, an extensive federal jurisdiction and policies that afforded special benefits to minority groups. In , he successfully argued his first case in Atlantic Richfield Company v. USA Petroleum Company, which concerned anti-trust law, and then successfully argued the standing case of Lujan v.
National Wildlife Federation, which became a hallmark in the field. When Starr recused himself in Metro Broadcasting, Inc. v.
Jane sullivan He ruled on several controversial cases including Hedgepeth v. Despite his intelligence, he was a natural leader and was named captain of his high school football team even though he wasn't its most athletic member. Bush won the contested presidential election , journalists speculated about whom he might consider as possible nominees for the Supreme Court. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.FCC, Roberts took his place, arguing that the use of racial preferences by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) was unconstitutional. The position failed to convince the Court, which announced on June 27, , that it had sided with the FCC. Government attorneys, surprised by Roberts's stance against the FCC, discussed whether it contributed to a politicization of the office, as the Solicitor General traditionally defended the Merrill, a deputy for the Solicitor General, described Roberts's candid position simply as: "This affirmative action program violated the Constitution, and we should present that to the Supreme Court."
When Clarence Thomas was confirmed to the Supreme Court in , Roberts's proven experience in complex litigation for the Bush administration made him a leading candidate to fill Thomas's vacancy on the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. On January 27, , Bush nominated Roberts, who had just turned 37 years old, to the D.C. Circuit, and Starr urged Senator Joe Biden, chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, to schedule a hearing despite an upcoming election year. Democratic lobbyists and progressive interest groups successfully encouraged Biden to stall the process.[59] As Bill Clinton defeated Bush in the presidential election, Roberts's nomination lapsed with no Senate vote and expired at the end of the nd Congress.[60]
In January , Roberts returned to Hogan and Hartson, where, finding great success as an advocate, he began to regularly appear again before the Supreme Court.
With a reputation as the leading private Supreme Court litigator, Roberts often represented corporations that sued individuals or the government.
He was Hogan and Hartson's most prominent partner, arguing 18 Supreme Court cases from to and 20 in nationwide appellate courts while also doing work pro bono, demonstrating expertise in a wide variety of different fields.
In June , to Roberts's satisfaction, the Supreme Court overruled his previous loss of Metro Broadcasting, Inc.
v. FCC in Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña, establishing that the government must treat people on an individual basis. The next year, his pro bono contributions included giving fundamental aid to gay rights activists in the landmark case of Romer v. Evans ().[66] During the presidential election, Roberts went to Florida to assist George W.
Bush, by which time Jeffrey Toobin identified him as "among the top advocates of his generation". According to biographer Joan Biskupic, he built a reputation "for his powers of persuasion and tireless preparation", and "his meticulous preparation and unflagging composure inspired confidence among his well-heeled clients." His arguments against government regulation often appealed to Rehnquist and the Court's conservatives while his style and skill in rhetoric won him the respect of John Paul Stevens and the Court's liberals.
Democrats and Republicans alike widely viewed Roberts as one of the Supreme Court's most distinguished advocates.[71]
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
When George W. Bush won the contested presidential election, journalists speculated about whom he might consider as possible nominees for the Supreme Court.
Luttig, Wilkinson, and other Reagan officials were leading candidates, but Judge Alberto Gonzales of the Texas Supreme Court, a close supporter of Bush, also emerged and had a chance to be the first Latino nominee. Roberts, who had not worked in government while Bill Clinton was in office, did not appear on lists compiled by Bush supporters, advocacy groups, or the media, but nonetheless remained a strong candidate for a Republican nomination and was poised to be re-nominated to the D.C.
Circuit, often used as a platform for Supreme Court nomination.
On May 9, , Bush nominated Roberts to a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to replace Judge James L. Buckley, who had retired.[75] Unlike in when his first nomination stalled in the Democratic-majority Senate, Roberts's nomination came when Republicans had secured a one-vote Senate majority.
But it soon lost that majority when Senator Jim Jeffords left the party to become an independent, jeopardizing Roberts's candidacy, which stalled once again when Senate Democrats refused to hold any nomination hearings.[76] In , Republicans regained control of the Senate and Roberts finally received a hearing by the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Supported by a bipartisan letter of support signed by more than members of the District of Columbia Bar—including White House counsels Lloyd Cutler, C.
Boyden Gray, and Solicitor General Seth Waxman—the Judiciary Committee recommended Roberts by a vote of 16 to 3,[f] and the Senate confirmed him unanimously by voice vote on May 8, [79] On June 2, he received his judicial commission.[80] Even when Roberts had not yet fully assumed his role as a circuit judge, White House Counsel officers listed him on their shortlist of Supreme Court candidates.
Roberts authored 49 opinions during his two-year service on the D.C.
Circuit, many of which concerned decisions by the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. His opinions often employed a "characteristically crisp, clear writing style" that favored the use of imagery and idioms.[g] Most of the disputes he reviewed concerned government regulation, union rights, and collective bargaining, but he also wrote on environmental law,[h] criminal law,[i] and procedural matters.
One case, Hedgepeth ex rel Hedgepeth v.
Supreme court justices The incident was announced by the Supreme Court press office on July 7, Create profiles to personalise content. Government Printing Office Washington: American Politics Research.Washington Metropolitan Area Transit (), garnered media attention when Roberts found that Washington police properly detained a year-old girl who ate in violation of a zero tolerance policy against eating in a metro station. His opinions generally reflected a conservative judicial philosophy, including in areas of civil rights and executive power.
The brevity of his tenure and his cautiousness in deciding cases left little for potential opponents to scrutinize while he made rulings as a circuit judge.
Nomination to the Supreme Court of the United States ()
Main article: John Roberts Supreme Court nomination
By the time of the presidential election, Justice Rehnquist had been fatally ill and senior Bush administration advisors under Karl Rove began assessing the potential candidates to replace him.
Among them, Roberts stood out for his experience as a Supreme Court advocate, which had brought him the favorable attention of not just conservatives but also liberals such as Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
On July 19, , President Bush nominated Roberts to the U.S. Supreme Court to fill a vacancy to be created by the impending retirement of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
Roberts's nomination was the first Supreme Court nomination since Stephen Breyer's in On September 3, , while Roberts's confirmation was pending before the Senate, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist died. Two days later, Bush withdrew Roberts's nomination as O'Connor's successor and nominated Roberts to succeed Rehnquist as chief justice.[89]
Roberts's testimony on his jurisprudence
During his confirmation hearings, Roberts said he did not have a comprehensive jurisprudential philosophy and did "not think beginning with an all-encompassing approach to constitutional interpretation is the best way to faithfully construe the document."[90][91] Roberts compared judges to baseball umpires: "[I]t's my job to call balls and strikes, and not to pitch or bat."[92] Among the issues he discussed during the hearings were:
Commerce Clause
In Senate hearings, Roberts said:
Starting with McCulloch v.
Maryland, Chief Justice John Marshall gave a very broad and expansive reading to the powers of the federal government and explained generally that if the ends be legitimate, then any means chosen to achieve them are within the power of the federal government, and cases interpreting that, throughout the years, have come down. Certainly, by the time Lopez was decided, many of us had learned in law school that it was just sort of a formality to say that interstate commerce was affected and that cases weren't going to be thrown out that way.
Supreme court judges: Retrieved June 26, Roberts returned to private practice at the end of Bush's first term in Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit , but the Senate did not hold a vote on his confirmation. Cases by Date.Lopez certainly breathed new life into the Commerce Clause. I think it remains to be seen, in subsequent decisions, how rigorous a showing, and in many cases, it is just a showing. It's not a question of an abstract fact—does this affect interstate commerce or not—but has this body, the Congress, demonstrated the impact on interstate commerce that drove them to legislate?
That's a very important factor. It wasn't present in Lopez at all. I think the members of Congress had heard the same thing I had heard in law school, that this is unimportant—and they hadn't gone through the process of establishing a record in that case.[91]
Federalism
Roberts said the following about federalism in a radio interview:
We have gotten to the point these days where we think the only way we can show we're serious about a problem is if we pass a federal law, whether it is the Violence Against Women Act or anything else.
The fact of the matter is conditions are different in different states, and state laws can be more—relevant is I think exactly the right term, more attuned to the different situations in New York, as opposed to Minnesota, and that is what the federal system is based on.[93]
Reviewing Acts of Congress
At a Senate hearing, Roberts said:
The Supreme Court has, throughout its history, on many occasions described the deference that is due to legislative judgments.
Justice Holmes described assessing the constitutionality of an act of Congress as the gravest duty that the Supreme Court is called upon to perform. It's a principle that is easily stated and needs to be observed in practice, as well as in theory. Now, the Court, of course, has the obligation, and has been recognized since Marbury v.
Madison, to assess the constitutionality of acts of Congress, and when those acts are challenged, it is the obligation of the Court to say what the law is. The determination of when deference to legislative policy judgments goes too far and becomes abdication of the judicial responsibility, and when scrutiny of those judgments goes too far on the part of the judges and becomes what I think is properly called judicial activism—that is certainly the central dilemma of having an unelected, as you describe it correctly, undemocratic judiciary in a democratic republic.[91]
Stare decisis
On the subject of stare decisis, referring to Brown v.
Board of Education, the decision overturning school segregation, Roberts said: "the Court in that case, of course, overruled a prior decision. I don't think that constitutes judicial activism because obviously if the decision is wrong, it should be overruled. That's not activism. That's applying the law correctly."[94]
Roe v.
Wade
As a lawyer for the Reagan administration, Roberts wrote legal memos defending administration policies on abortion. At his nomination hearing, he testified that the legal memos represented the views of the administration he was representing at the time and not necessarily his own.[96] "I was a staff lawyer; I didn't have a position," Roberts said.[96] As a lawyer in the George H.
W. Bush administration, Roberts signed a legal brief urging the court to overturn Roe v.
John roberts supreme court how tall Bolla , which upheld a harsh securities fraud sentence, and in United States v. Heien v. He said the social expectation test was flawed because the Fourth Amendment protects a legitimate expectation of privacy, not social expectations. Kennedy, writing for a five-justice majority, distinguished Stenberg v.Wade.
In private meetings with senators before his confirmation, Roberts testified that Roe was settled law, but added that it was subject to the legal principle of stare decisis, meaning that while the Court must give some weight to the precedent, it was not legally bound to uphold it.
In his Senate testimony, Roberts said that, while sitting on the Appellate Court, he had an obligation to respect precedents established by the Supreme Court, including the right to abortion.
He said: "Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. There is nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent, as well as Casey." Following nominees' traditional reluctance to indicate which way they might vote on an issue likely to come before the Supreme Court, he did not explicitly say whether he would vote to overturn either.[90]Jeffrey Rosen said, "I wouldn't bet on Chief Justice Roberts's siding unequivocally with the anti-Roe forces."[99]
Confirmation
On September 22, , the Senate Judiciary Committee approved Roberts's nomination by a vote of 13–5, with Senators Ted Kennedy, Richard Durbin, Charles Schumer, Joe Biden, and Dianne Feinstein opposed.
The full Senate confirmed Roberts on September 29 by a margin of 78–[] All Republicans and the one Independent voted for Roberts; the Democrats split evenly, 22– Roberts was confirmed by what was, historically, a narrow margin for a Supreme Court justice,[9] but all subsequent confirmation votes have been even narrower.[][][][]
U.S.
Supreme Court
Main article: Roberts Court