What Makes Chief Justice Roberts Lose His Cool
Listen to the exchange that made the Supreme Court's even-tempered chief justice flare up during oral argument.
February 26, 2018 at 11:33 AM
4 minute read
Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. rarely loses his temper.
Since his days as a top Supreme Court advocate in the 1990s and early 2000s, he has been known as a calm, even-tempered voice at the court. Asked in 2000 why he was not more impassioned in his delivery, he told this reporter, “Impassioned rhetoric doesn't work with the Supreme Court. If it did, I'd become impassioned.”
Now in his thirteenth year as chief justice, Roberts has mostly kept that reputation.
Which is why it was so unusual that Roberts seemed to get heated February 20 during an otherwise sedate oral argument in City of Hays, Kansas v. Vogt. The case asked whether the Fifth Amendment's protection against forced self-incrimination extends to statements introduced in pretrial probable cause hearings.
But Roberts didn't get riled up over the merits of the case. Roberts is a stickler for procedure, and the episode shows that he is more prone to flare up when rules and traditions are sidestepped than anything else. The last time Roberts seemed this upset may have been in 2016, when he scolded a lawyer for expanding the scope of a case beyond the issue the court agreed to resolve.
Listen to the full exchange here:
[falcon-embed src="embed_1"]
Well into the Vogt argument last week, Justice Stephen Breyer was trying to figure out from the record whether in fact defendant Matthew Vogt had incriminated himself in pretrial proceedings and whether his lawyer objected. “Looking at the transcript of the preliminary hearing,” Breyer said, “I couldn't find any instance where any of the compelled statements were introduced into the preliminary hearing.”
Vogt's lawyer Kelsi Corkran, partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, replied that “none of that is in the record,” and was about to explain why.
But Roberts did not wait for an explanation. He was upset. “That's an important point, isn't it?” he said. “Well, before we start having an extended exchange about … something that's not in the record, I — well, I guess I would just like to point out that it's not in the record. There's a reason we confine things to what's in the record, including, 'how do we know what this is if it's not in the record?'”
Corkran, who was arguing her first case before the high court, tried to interject, but Roberts wasn't finished. “How do we know that it's been adequately — had a chance for people to object to it and all that?” He asked. “It's not just a passing comment that it's not in the record.”
As he continued, Roberts seemed angry that Breyer had asked the question: “As far as I'm concerned, coming in and saying I want to know about this thing that's not in the record is no different from somebody else coming off the street and saying: 'Hey, wait a minute, I know what happened in this case.'”
Roberts calmed down only slightly when he told Corkran, “Go ahead and answer it. It's a question that you've been presented with. Go ahead and answer it.”
Perhaps trying to shield Corkran from the chief's ire, Breyer said, “You don't have to answer it.”
Roberts was still steaming. “No, No, no, feel free. I'm just saying I will discount the answers because it's not something that's in the record.”
Unruffled by Roberts' snit, Corkran calmly seized the moment, answering in a way that may help her client: “It's really important to explain that the reason it's not in the record is because petitioner chose to seek this court's interlocutory review at the pleading stage.”
She went on to suggest, “If this court wanted to [dismiss] the case as improvidently granted, we would certainly not object.” Such a dismissal would leave in place a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit that favored her client.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'A Warning Shot to Board Rooms': DOJ Decision to Fight $14B Tech Merger May Be Bad Omen for Industry
'Incredibly Complicated'? Antitrust Litigators Identify Pros and Cons of Proposed One Agency Act
5 minute readApple Files Appeal to DC Circuit Aiming to Intervene in Google Search Monopoly Case
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1How Some Elite Law Firms Are Growing Equity Partner Ranks Faster Than Others
- 2Fried Frank Partner Leaves for Paul Hastings to Start Tech Transactions Practice
- 3Stradley Ronon Welcomes Insurance Team From Mintz
- 4Weil Adds Acting Director of SEC Enforcement, Continuing Government Hiring Streak
- 5Monday Newspaper
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250