Roberts, Ruling Against Trump, Faces New Round of Conservatives' Criticism
"Our review is deferential, but we are 'not required to exhibit a naiveté from which ordinary citizens are free,'" Roberts wrote in the census ruling.
June 27, 2019 at 03:23 PM
4 minute read
If there was any doubt that Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. is the pivotal vote on the U.S. Supreme Court, he erased it Thursday, the last sitting of the court's term.
In Rucho v. Common Cause, Roberts held fast to his longstanding position that refereeing disputes over partisan gerrymandering is not the business of federal courts. It was a 5-4 decision that reflected his view that the Supreme Court has “no commission to allocate political power.”
In Department of Commerce v. New York, Roberts was also, in a sense, trying to keep the court out of politics by sending the issue of adding a citizenship question to the U.S. Census back to lower courts. The four liberal justices joined Roberts in viewing the rationale behind the action as “contrived.”
Perhaps disturbed by recent reports that adding the question was aimed at undercounting minorities, Roberts may not have wanted the public to think he was oblivious to the evidence and rubber-stamping the Trump administration's wishes. Thursday's ruling returns the case to a New York federal trial judge, Jesse Furman, for further review.
“Our review is deferential, but we are 'not required to exhibit a naiveté from which ordinary citizens are free,'” Roberts wrote in the census ruling, using a 1977 quote from his mentor, Judge Henry Friendly of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Almost immediately after the decision came down, Roberts caught sharp criticism from conservatives offended that he would second-guess the administration's reasoning.
Matt Schlapp, chairman of the American Conservative Union, tweeted, “I'm for impeaching the Chief Justice for lying to all of us about his support of the Constitution. He is responsible for Robertscare and now he is angling for vast numbers of illegal residents to help Dems hold Congress.”
“Whatever Roberts' motives might be … the census decision will surely deepen the impression that Roberts is the new Justice Kennedy, rather than the reliable fifth conservative vote that liberals feared and conservatives hoped for,” Curt Levey of the conservative Committee for Justice said. “Roberts disappointed conservatives today—to a degree not seen since he saved ObamaCare in 2012.”
Likening Roberts to the retired Justice Anthony Kennedy bolsters the notion that the chief justice is the pivotal vote, as Kennedy was.
“It was always clear once Justice Kennedy resigned that this was going to be the chief justice's court,” said Hogan Lovells partner Neal Katyal, who participated in a brief against the census question. “He cares so much about the institution of the court, so today's decision in the census case was not surprising, when faced with the kind of bogus explanations that Judge Furman demolished.”
Roberts' conservatives colleagues, including Justice Clarence Thomas, used soaring language to criticize what the court had done.
“The court's holding reflects an unprecedented departure from our deferential review of discretionary agency decisions. And, if taken seriously as a rule of decision, this holding would transform administrative law,” Thomas wrote.
In addition to the census ruling Thursday, Roberts in February sided with the court's liberals in halting implementation of a restrictive Louisiana abortion law in the case June Medical Services v. Gee.
In a July 2018 speech Roberts said, “I feel some obligation to be something of an honest broker among my colleagues and won't necessarily go out of my way to pick fights,” and instead “would sort of sublimate [my] views.”
But in the census case Wednesday, that obligation apparently took a back seat to his feeling that the court should not be suckered, whether or not a fight ensued.
“We cannot ignore the disconnect between the decision made and the explanation given,” Roberts wrote. “If judicial review is to be more than an empty ritual, it must demand something better than the explanation offered for the action taken in this case.”
|Read more:
Kagan Writes Stinging Dissent as Court Sidesteps Politically Rigged Election Maps
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
© 2024 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'Parting Shot': SEC Issues Wells Notice to Immutable Ahead of US Election
3 minute readDapper Labs $4M Settlement, $1.3M in Attorney Fees Reveal NFT Settlement Trend
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 3Guarantees Are Back, Whether Law Firms Want to Talk About Them or Not
- 4Trump Files $10B Suit Against CBS in Amarillo Federal Court
- 5Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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