Chief Justice John Roberts often downplays his influence over the Supreme Court, lamenting his lack of direct authority over his eight colleagues. “You can’t fire people if they don’t follow you. You can’t cut their pay,” he remarked to a group of federal judges recently. Despite his modesty, Roberts wields significant power through his ability to assign the court’s opinions, a tool he uses to shape the court’s direction and legacy.
Roberts’ strategic use of this power was evident as he completed his 20th term on the bench. When in the majority, Roberts decides which justice will write the opinion, a decision that goes beyond the vote itself. The rationale and tone of an opinion can set precedents and influence lower courts. This term, Roberts was in the majority more than any other justice, allowing him to assign 54 out of 56 opinions.
The Power of Opinion Assignment
The ability to assign opinions is a crucial lever of influence for any Chief Justice. Roberts has historically kept significant cases for himself, especially those involving presidential powers. This approach allows him to guide the court’s legacy and maintain a balanced judiciary.
However, Roberts also uses his assignment power to build alliances and reward colleagues. In a surprising move, he assigned a major opinion to Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a junior justice often criticized by conservative factions for perceived disloyalty. This decision not only bolstered Barrett’s standing but also strategically aligned her with Roberts in a pivotal case.
Strategic Surprises and Historical Parallels
Roberts’ decision to assign Barrett the opinion in a high-profile case concerning former President Donald Trump’s policies was unexpected. The case effectively released Trump from numerous lower-court orders blocking his policies, including efforts to alter birthright citizenship. The assignment was a significant opportunity for Barrett, who delivered a decision that resonated with conservative principles while subtly reinforcing her judicial independence.
Historically, Chief Justices have used opinion assignments to influence court outcomes. Chief Justice Warren Burger, for instance, was known to switch his vote to remain in the majority, ensuring control over opinion assignments. Roberts, however, has employed a more nuanced approach, rewarding justices who demonstrate restraint and crossover voting.
Building Alliances and Influencing Outcomes
Roberts’ influence extends beyond opinion assignments. As the court’s leader, he oversees oral arguments and conducts closed-door conferences where justices discuss and vote on cases. His seniority allows him to dictate much of the court’s agenda, reinforcing his central role in shaping its direction.
Roberts’ strategic alliances are evident in his assignments to liberal justices in conservative cases. For example, he assigned Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson a decision in a “reverse discrimination” case, and Justice Sonia Sotomayor a church-state clash favoring religious interests. These decisions demonstrate Roberts’ ability to bridge ideological divides and foster a more cohesive court.
Looking Ahead: Roberts’ Legacy and Influence
As Roberts continues to steer the Supreme Court, his legacy will likely be defined by his strategic use of opinion assignments and his ability to maintain a balanced judiciary. His recent decision to assign Barrett a major opinion underscores his influence and highlights his role in shaping the court’s future.
Roberts’ tenure as Chief Justice has been marked by a commitment to judicial independence and a strategic approach to leadership. As he looks to the future, his influence on the court will continue to be felt through his careful management of opinion assignments and his efforts to build alliances across ideological lines.
While Roberts may downplay his power, his strategic decisions reveal a Chief Justice deeply committed to guiding the Supreme Court through a complex and evolving legal landscape. His influence will undoubtedly shape the court’s legacy for years to come.
