Reading between the lines, there's a lot to commend in Chief Justice Roberts's year-end report. Measured against the year that was, though, its subtleties are for an increasingly shrinking audience.
When I read the CJ's report, it seemed to me he was speaking to an audience of one: himself. The report was a transparent attempt on Roberts's part to reassure himself that "the rule of law is strong," when any sentient observer would conclude it isn't.
It was good to see the SCOTUS Chief Justice acknowledge that the text of our Constitution was designed to reflect the spirit of our Declaration of Independence. He made the common sense decision to acknowledge the self-evident truth that “the concrete provisions of the 1787 Constitution fell short of honoring the abstract principles set forth in the 1776 Declaration—most notably, in regard to the Declaration’s promise of liberty and equality.” He also correctly highlighted some respects in which the concrete provisions of our Constitution (Amendments XIII through XV) vastly improved on the 1787 version regarding the liberty and equality of most men.
Even so, Chief Justice Roberts completely neglected other crucial concrete provisions of our Constitution (Amendments XIX, XXIV and XXVI) that vastly improved on the 1787 or the 1860’s version regarding the liberty and equality of all the people. Chief Justice Roberts (like many current SCOTUS justices) hides or obscures the far greater self-evident truth about the nexus between “the key passage” of the Declaration of Independence and multiple “concrete provisions” of our Constitution. Certain constitutional amendments radically re-defined the very concept of “the People.” They did so in a way that was designed to repeatedly and emphatically overrule (as Chief Justice Roberts acknowledged) “the Supreme Court,” itself, and “its infamous decision in the Dred Scott case” (which asserted absurd falsehoods about who could be citizens and exercise the sovereign powers of citizens).
Self-evidently, however, the amendments to our Constitution, above, did much more than merely seek to eliminate the effects of slavery. Those amendments were directed directly at establishing sovereignty, i.e., the sovereignty of the people (over ourselves and over our public servants), including by expanding the scope of the people who are sovereign.
The Fourteenth Amendment clarified the sweeping scope of "citizens." The Fifteenth Amendment prohibited discrimination against certain citizens "on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." The Nineteenth Amendment prohibited discrimination against more citizens "on account of sex." The Twenty-Sixth Amendment prohibited discrimination against other citizens "on account of age" if they were at least "eighteen years of age." The Twenty-Fourth Amendment prohibited discrimination against other citizens on account of wealth ("by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax").
I would like to see a year end "minority" report. Sotomayor seems to be the most outspoken in their defense and would have a more sobering assessment of Supreme Court rulings and its support of democracy, freedom and liberty.
I appreciate your observation about the limited audience the Chief Justice was appealing to with his year-end report. I wrote my own article on what, if anything, the Chief Justice was signaling with his report. Is he having second thoughts about his own role in enabling Trump? Or is he just trying to placate the increasingly angry public? We should know by the end of this term if the report has any true significance.
I would love to see this published in the Times, or even the WSJ. It’s a very good summary of where our country and the Judiciary is after the first year of Trump 2.
As usual, Mr. Vladeck offers another very well-presented article. The last line, however, reveals the truth of this entire subject.
"And it remains today a powerful example of how the year-end report, for all of its shortcomings, can be an effective opportunity for the Chief Justice to put himself (and the judiciary) above partisan politics. He just has to want to do so."
The answer is clear, despite the desires of millions of citizens across our country, he does not want to do so! Even more importantly, neither does our Congress! Our desires, much like those of all other once democracies, mean little once the dictator attains power. In only the first year, this Court, our Congress, and the current Administration have marched in march-step, except for the last ruling against the deployment of State controlled National Guard units, toward one goal: the overthrowing of our democracy and the establishment of an authoritarian government.
That action, now fully embedded in the process of governing, openly flouts every law we may have considered useful in the management of a democracy. The SCOTUS members, the President, and any number of others in government openly accept money from all walks of life, and those "contributors" openly receive their rewards with equal consideration.
We all know what is happening. There are no more questions that need to be answered or even raised, for that matter. Until the Chief Justice decides "HE" has had enough, and that America cannot fall further into third-world governing, we watch with horror as these people destroy our country. Yet, even if he does finally stand up to his responsibility, the question is, will he be allowed to do so?
It’s time for Occams Rasor. This is the worst court in American history and Roberts is nothing but a spokesman for Trump. I’ve always thought that Dred Scott, Plessy’ and Korematsu were thé worst Court decisions but the combination a a couple of this courts decisions and its use of emergency docket issues are even worse. . This Court has written a welcome message to the takeover of American democratic by a thuggish and brutal regime. And they did it intentionally. We cannot stop what the Court has now done and we will suffer the consequences. But I sure wish that brilliant professors such as Vladeck would give up trying to find non existent excuses for their behavior and recognize what this Cpurt has become -:a blot on American history and perhaps the end of the unique American story
Thank you for so consistently applying your energies and brain power in order to decipher the meanings (and the avoidance) in these judicial communications. Also thank you for using a minimum of legalize so that those of us who are not lawyers can easily follow your arguments.
Do you have any indication of whether Roberts or other members of the Supreme Court read what you and other critics are saying? I would give a lot if if individual judges would be willing to respond to direct questions and observations so that there would be some way to hold their feet to the fire. The overworked liberal justices! Do you imagine there’s any direct conversation between them and the conservatives?
As a member of the general public, what can I do to pressure members of the Supreme Court to discuss this directly?
Giving Chief Justice Roberts the benefit of the doubt, his audience seemed to be all judges and all lawyers. He emphasized the equal power of the judiciary and judges' duty to be independent of all except the legal authorities and facts that our Constitution requires or permits. That seemed to be the point of his misrepresentation (again) that our "Constitution" somehow "grant[ed federal judges] life tenure."
Nothing in our Constitution granted any public servant a term for "life." Only federal “judges” who “behave properly, will be secured in their places for life.” Federalist No. 79 (Alexander Hamilton). “The tenure by which the judges are to hold their places, is, as it unquestionably ought to be, that of good behavior.” Federalist No. 39 (James Madison). Ours is “a republic, where every magistrate ought to be personally responsible for his behavior in office.” Federalist No. 70 (Hamilton).
Even so, Chief Justice Roberts rightly emphasized that our Constitution expressly protects judges' tenure and compensation not for their benefit but for ours. "The Constitution" did so "to safeguard the independence of federal judges and ensure their ability to serve as a counter-majoritarian check on the political branches. This arrangement, now in place for 236 years, has served the country well."
Chief Justice Roberts acknowledged that "the concrete provisions of the 1787 Constitution fell short of honoring the abstract principles set forth in the 1776 Declaration," but "the concrete provisions of the 1787 Constitution" did emphasize equality in crucial respects. Article VI emphasizes that all "Judges in every State shall be bound" by "the supreme Law of the Land," which is limited to our "Constitution," federal "Laws" that are "made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties." Moreover, absolutely all "Members" of federal and "State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of [all] States" are equally "bound" to "support [our] Constitution."
It is well worth noting that the expression "judicial Officers" includes every lawyer admitted to practice law in any court. So every lawyer admitted to practice law in any court is required to swear or affirm that he or she will support our Constitution in all conduct before such court.
I want to compliment you on your compassionate reporting truth to power with evidence and historical context. We are in this together. No Kings. Peace. Vote in 2026 to uphold the constitution. Christopher and family
Thank you for giving us a possible somewhat optimistic interpretation of the Chief's history lesson. If only the concerns you mention weren't belied by his actions and silences.
In considering the role of Chief Justice Roberts and the subtleties he expresses, why not apply the well-known commonsense phrase that is as applicable to him as to anyone of us. “Watch
In evaluatingthe role of Chief Justice Roberts and the significance of the subtleties he expresses, why not apply the well-known commonsense advice that is as applicable to him as to all of us. “Watch what I do, not what I say (or write)?”
I am not a mind reader and cannot claim to know what is in the Chief Justice’s mind or brain or his heart. But his reference to that marvelous document the Declaration of Independence (which is as relevant today as it was 250 years ago, if you replace the present King of Great Britain with the present President) ) tells us all we need to know, except whether Chief Justice Robers recognizes how hypocritical he is, or is successfully applying his intelligence to convince himself that he is a true defender of the values and principles embodied in that Declaration and in the Constitution. I confess that as a schoolboy in England in the 1950s taking history classes about the glories of the British Empire the “unfortunate” events of 1776-1783 were quickly glossed over to move onto the history of what became - thanks to the impact of the Battle of Plessey (1757) - the Jewel of the Crown (India). We should not overlook the intercontinental scope of the war betweeen England and France which shortly before the American War of Independence involved both the North American and Indian subcontinents. And then in one of history's provocative ironies, the influence of the values behind the American War of Independence upon the Indian movement for independence which the British recognized over 160 years later. Only much later did I come to appreciate the exceptionalism of the United States, and its fitful progress (with some forward, and some backward steps) towards a “more perfect” Union. The sovereignty of We, the people, not of a divinely or self-appointed, divinely approved leader struck me as one foundation of this exceptionalism, along with the establishment of significant mechanisms of self-correction against abuses of power. Most if not all religions or systems of governance based upon a Supreme Power lack such mechanisms. Over time the category of “people” with equal rights and protections in the US has been expanded from a minority of property-owning white males to include many, even all members of humanity.
Accompanying a growing level of distrust and cynicism towards the Court, its decisions and Roberts himself may foster a battered citizens syndrome among some of the American population, in which despite repeated instances of evidence to the contrary the assumption is that they (or he ) do not really mean it ,and they (he) will not do it again. Therefore we, the people, should remain in a relationship of respect and deference towards the Supremes’ wisdom and their important role in our lives, instead of doing all we can to make them pay a penalty for their complicity in violating the basic values, principles and rights we hold dear.
The Chief Justice can be as disarmingly subtle as he is able in speaking and writing to whatever audience he is targeting. But his true character, intentions and priorities are evident in his own votes and the Court’s actions. Has he not revealed his true self - a MAGA (Make America Georgian Again) advocate? If he wants to demonstrate that he is not a MAGA advocate he should give us concrete evidence that he understands that the current President and his toadies at the DOJ are acting act as if the law is whatever the unitary executive decides it is at any moment. Any decision by the CJ and the Court which does not decisively repudiate this assertion is tantamount to agreeing with the President. However subtly Roberts claims he is defending the supremacy of the Supreme Court he is in practice - a sign of cognitive dissonance ? - acknowledging that there is no need for this Court, because there is a Supreme Judge who has the right and the power to decide what the law is and to change it as often and however he sees fit. As for the corruption he tolerates among some Justices ......but that is for another time.
I think the audience for the report IS Trump and his regime. All the blathering about Paine, immigrants, Constitution, etc., is window dressing. To cover the fact that Roberts has caved to Trump just like Congress did.
Summarizing history while allowing the regime to ignore law and the Constitution is nothing more than fluff.
If you're correct that Roberts is writing to Trump et al, could it be he is reminding the executive branch that the USA was founded on and continues to embrace liberty and justice for all, the rule of law etc ... and that even the Supreme Court has a limit to how much illegal behavior it will tolerate? (Am I wishful thinking?)
The common unspoken statement from both Roberts and the Republican Congress is Why buy the cow, when you can get the milk free? They are place holders in Trump’s regime. Nothing more.
When I read the CJ's report, it seemed to me he was speaking to an audience of one: himself. The report was a transparent attempt on Roberts's part to reassure himself that "the rule of law is strong," when any sentient observer would conclude it isn't.
It was good to see the SCOTUS Chief Justice acknowledge that the text of our Constitution was designed to reflect the spirit of our Declaration of Independence. He made the common sense decision to acknowledge the self-evident truth that “the concrete provisions of the 1787 Constitution fell short of honoring the abstract principles set forth in the 1776 Declaration—most notably, in regard to the Declaration’s promise of liberty and equality.” He also correctly highlighted some respects in which the concrete provisions of our Constitution (Amendments XIII through XV) vastly improved on the 1787 version regarding the liberty and equality of most men.
Even so, Chief Justice Roberts completely neglected other crucial concrete provisions of our Constitution (Amendments XIX, XXIV and XXVI) that vastly improved on the 1787 or the 1860’s version regarding the liberty and equality of all the people. Chief Justice Roberts (like many current SCOTUS justices) hides or obscures the far greater self-evident truth about the nexus between “the key passage” of the Declaration of Independence and multiple “concrete provisions” of our Constitution. Certain constitutional amendments radically re-defined the very concept of “the People.” They did so in a way that was designed to repeatedly and emphatically overrule (as Chief Justice Roberts acknowledged) “the Supreme Court,” itself, and “its infamous decision in the Dred Scott case” (which asserted absurd falsehoods about who could be citizens and exercise the sovereign powers of citizens).
Self-evidently, however, the amendments to our Constitution, above, did much more than merely seek to eliminate the effects of slavery. Those amendments were directed directly at establishing sovereignty, i.e., the sovereignty of the people (over ourselves and over our public servants), including by expanding the scope of the people who are sovereign.
The Fourteenth Amendment clarified the sweeping scope of "citizens." The Fifteenth Amendment prohibited discrimination against certain citizens "on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." The Nineteenth Amendment prohibited discrimination against more citizens "on account of sex." The Twenty-Sixth Amendment prohibited discrimination against other citizens "on account of age" if they were at least "eighteen years of age." The Twenty-Fourth Amendment prohibited discrimination against other citizens on account of wealth ("by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax").
yes
I often wonder if Robert’s has regrets. History will not be kind to him.
I would like to see a year end "minority" report. Sotomayor seems to be the most outspoken in their defense and would have a more sobering assessment of Supreme Court rulings and its support of democracy, freedom and liberty.
I appreciate your observation about the limited audience the Chief Justice was appealing to with his year-end report. I wrote my own article on what, if anything, the Chief Justice was signaling with his report. Is he having second thoughts about his own role in enabling Trump? Or is he just trying to placate the increasingly angry public? We should know by the end of this term if the report has any true significance.
Another insightful post from Professor Vladeck.
I would love to see this published in the Times, or even the WSJ. It’s a very good summary of where our country and the Judiciary is after the first year of Trump 2.
More people should read it.
As usual, Mr. Vladeck offers another very well-presented article. The last line, however, reveals the truth of this entire subject.
"And it remains today a powerful example of how the year-end report, for all of its shortcomings, can be an effective opportunity for the Chief Justice to put himself (and the judiciary) above partisan politics. He just has to want to do so."
The answer is clear, despite the desires of millions of citizens across our country, he does not want to do so! Even more importantly, neither does our Congress! Our desires, much like those of all other once democracies, mean little once the dictator attains power. In only the first year, this Court, our Congress, and the current Administration have marched in march-step, except for the last ruling against the deployment of State controlled National Guard units, toward one goal: the overthrowing of our democracy and the establishment of an authoritarian government.
That action, now fully embedded in the process of governing, openly flouts every law we may have considered useful in the management of a democracy. The SCOTUS members, the President, and any number of others in government openly accept money from all walks of life, and those "contributors" openly receive their rewards with equal consideration.
We all know what is happening. There are no more questions that need to be answered or even raised, for that matter. Until the Chief Justice decides "HE" has had enough, and that America cannot fall further into third-world governing, we watch with horror as these people destroy our country. Yet, even if he does finally stand up to his responsibility, the question is, will he be allowed to do so?
Agreed. Those who should be contributing to continuing the balance of power as our constitution dictates are derelict in their duty.
It’s time for Occams Rasor. This is the worst court in American history and Roberts is nothing but a spokesman for Trump. I’ve always thought that Dred Scott, Plessy’ and Korematsu were thé worst Court decisions but the combination a a couple of this courts decisions and its use of emergency docket issues are even worse. . This Court has written a welcome message to the takeover of American democratic by a thuggish and brutal regime. And they did it intentionally. We cannot stop what the Court has now done and we will suffer the consequences. But I sure wish that brilliant professors such as Vladeck would give up trying to find non existent excuses for their behavior and recognize what this Cpurt has become -:a blot on American history and perhaps the end of the unique American story
Thank you for so consistently applying your energies and brain power in order to decipher the meanings (and the avoidance) in these judicial communications. Also thank you for using a minimum of legalize so that those of us who are not lawyers can easily follow your arguments.
Do you have any indication of whether Roberts or other members of the Supreme Court read what you and other critics are saying? I would give a lot if if individual judges would be willing to respond to direct questions and observations so that there would be some way to hold their feet to the fire. The overworked liberal justices! Do you imagine there’s any direct conversation between them and the conservatives?
As a member of the general public, what can I do to pressure members of the Supreme Court to discuss this directly?
Giving Chief Justice Roberts the benefit of the doubt, his audience seemed to be all judges and all lawyers. He emphasized the equal power of the judiciary and judges' duty to be independent of all except the legal authorities and facts that our Constitution requires or permits. That seemed to be the point of his misrepresentation (again) that our "Constitution" somehow "grant[ed federal judges] life tenure."
Nothing in our Constitution granted any public servant a term for "life." Only federal “judges” who “behave properly, will be secured in their places for life.” Federalist No. 79 (Alexander Hamilton). “The tenure by which the judges are to hold their places, is, as it unquestionably ought to be, that of good behavior.” Federalist No. 39 (James Madison). Ours is “a republic, where every magistrate ought to be personally responsible for his behavior in office.” Federalist No. 70 (Hamilton).
Even so, Chief Justice Roberts rightly emphasized that our Constitution expressly protects judges' tenure and compensation not for their benefit but for ours. "The Constitution" did so "to safeguard the independence of federal judges and ensure their ability to serve as a counter-majoritarian check on the political branches. This arrangement, now in place for 236 years, has served the country well."
Chief Justice Roberts acknowledged that "the concrete provisions of the 1787 Constitution fell short of honoring the abstract principles set forth in the 1776 Declaration," but "the concrete provisions of the 1787 Constitution" did emphasize equality in crucial respects. Article VI emphasizes that all "Judges in every State shall be bound" by "the supreme Law of the Land," which is limited to our "Constitution," federal "Laws" that are "made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties." Moreover, absolutely all "Members" of federal and "State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of [all] States" are equally "bound" to "support [our] Constitution."
It is well worth noting that the expression "judicial Officers" includes every lawyer admitted to practice law in any court. So every lawyer admitted to practice law in any court is required to swear or affirm that he or she will support our Constitution in all conduct before such court.
Steve,
I want to compliment you on your compassionate reporting truth to power with evidence and historical context. We are in this together. No Kings. Peace. Vote in 2026 to uphold the constitution. Christopher and family
Thank you for giving us a possible somewhat optimistic interpretation of the Chief's history lesson. If only the concerns you mention weren't belied by his actions and silences.
In considering the role of Chief Justice Roberts and the subtleties he expresses, why not apply the well-known commonsense phrase that is as applicable to him as to anyone of us. “Watch
In evaluatingthe role of Chief Justice Roberts and the significance of the subtleties he expresses, why not apply the well-known commonsense advice that is as applicable to him as to all of us. “Watch what I do, not what I say (or write)?”
I am not a mind reader and cannot claim to know what is in the Chief Justice’s mind or brain or his heart. But his reference to that marvelous document the Declaration of Independence (which is as relevant today as it was 250 years ago, if you replace the present King of Great Britain with the present President) ) tells us all we need to know, except whether Chief Justice Robers recognizes how hypocritical he is, or is successfully applying his intelligence to convince himself that he is a true defender of the values and principles embodied in that Declaration and in the Constitution. I confess that as a schoolboy in England in the 1950s taking history classes about the glories of the British Empire the “unfortunate” events of 1776-1783 were quickly glossed over to move onto the history of what became - thanks to the impact of the Battle of Plessey (1757) - the Jewel of the Crown (India). We should not overlook the intercontinental scope of the war betweeen England and France which shortly before the American War of Independence involved both the North American and Indian subcontinents. And then in one of history's provocative ironies, the influence of the values behind the American War of Independence upon the Indian movement for independence which the British recognized over 160 years later. Only much later did I come to appreciate the exceptionalism of the United States, and its fitful progress (with some forward, and some backward steps) towards a “more perfect” Union. The sovereignty of We, the people, not of a divinely or self-appointed, divinely approved leader struck me as one foundation of this exceptionalism, along with the establishment of significant mechanisms of self-correction against abuses of power. Most if not all religions or systems of governance based upon a Supreme Power lack such mechanisms. Over time the category of “people” with equal rights and protections in the US has been expanded from a minority of property-owning white males to include many, even all members of humanity.
Accompanying a growing level of distrust and cynicism towards the Court, its decisions and Roberts himself may foster a battered citizens syndrome among some of the American population, in which despite repeated instances of evidence to the contrary the assumption is that they (or he ) do not really mean it ,and they (he) will not do it again. Therefore we, the people, should remain in a relationship of respect and deference towards the Supremes’ wisdom and their important role in our lives, instead of doing all we can to make them pay a penalty for their complicity in violating the basic values, principles and rights we hold dear.
The Chief Justice can be as disarmingly subtle as he is able in speaking and writing to whatever audience he is targeting. But his true character, intentions and priorities are evident in his own votes and the Court’s actions. Has he not revealed his true self - a MAGA (Make America Georgian Again) advocate? If he wants to demonstrate that he is not a MAGA advocate he should give us concrete evidence that he understands that the current President and his toadies at the DOJ are acting act as if the law is whatever the unitary executive decides it is at any moment. Any decision by the CJ and the Court which does not decisively repudiate this assertion is tantamount to agreeing with the President. However subtly Roberts claims he is defending the supremacy of the Supreme Court he is in practice - a sign of cognitive dissonance ? - acknowledging that there is no need for this Court, because there is a Supreme Judge who has the right and the power to decide what the law is and to change it as often and however he sees fit. As for the corruption he tolerates among some Justices ......but that is for another time.
Anyone who says the United States has an independent judiciary is delusional or lying.
agreed
I think the audience for the report IS Trump and his regime. All the blathering about Paine, immigrants, Constitution, etc., is window dressing. To cover the fact that Roberts has caved to Trump just like Congress did.
Summarizing history while allowing the regime to ignore law and the Constitution is nothing more than fluff.
If you're correct that Roberts is writing to Trump et al, could it be he is reminding the executive branch that the USA was founded on and continues to embrace liberty and justice for all, the rule of law etc ... and that even the Supreme Court has a limit to how much illegal behavior it will tolerate? (Am I wishful thinking?)
hopefull thinking, and a reasonable interpretation
The common unspoken statement from both Roberts and the Republican Congress is Why buy the cow, when you can get the milk free? They are place holders in Trump’s regime. Nothing more.