John Roberts was never meant to be the chief justice. In 2005, George W. Bush nominated him for a seat on the Supreme Court as an associate justice. Weeks later, Chief Justice William Rehnquist passed away, and Bush seized the moment—Roberts would take the helm instead.
What followed was not a cautious guardianship of the Court’s middle ground but a twenty-year journey that redrew the legal landscape of the United States. Under Roberts’ leadership, the Court has become the most conservative in a century, handing down decisions that reshaped law on abortion, guns, race, religion, presidential power, and the very structure of federal authority.
Roberts, raised in the Midwest with a reputation for politeness and institutional loyalty, once presented himself as a measured umpire calling legal “balls and strikes.” Yet, his Court has swung with ferocity, particularly after Donald Trump’s appointments cemented a 6–3 conservative majority in 2020. In the years since, landmark rulings have poured out in rapid succession, shifting American constitutional law in ways that critics call revolutionary and supporters hail as corrective.
He personally authored some of the era’s most seismic opinions. In 2024, Roberts wrote the decision granting presidents immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts, sparking warnings from liberal justices that the ruling placed presidents above the law. Years earlier, he presided over the dismantling of Roe v. Wade, struck down race-conscious college admissions, and expanded individual gun rights.
To conservatives, these were victories long overdue. To others, they represented a distortion of law for ideological ends. Either way, Roberts’ fingerprints are unmistakable.
Despite his alignment with conservative causes, Roberts has occasionally broken ranks—most famously in 2012, when he sided with liberals to preserve Barack Obama’s healthcare law, and in Dobbs, where he sought a narrower ruling on abortion than his colleagues delivered. These flashes of caution have earned him the label of “institutionalist” in some circles, though detractors say that reputation is overstated.
Beyond ideology, Roberts has found himself at odds with Donald Trump. Twice he publicly rebuked the former president for attacking federal judges, though in recent years he has fallen silent as Trump and his allies escalate rhetoric against the judiciary.
Roberts’ imprint on race-related law has been especially defining. His rulings curtailed federal oversight of voting changes in historically discriminatory states, struck down race-based school assignments, and erased affirmative action in college admissions. His oft-quoted line—“The way to stop discrimination based on race is to stop discriminating based on race”—captures the clarity and controversy of his judicial philosophy.
Now 70, Roberts still presides not only over the Supreme Court but also the federal judiciary at large, administering presidential oaths and even overseeing Trump’s first impeachment trial. Two decades in, the Court he leads has remade American law, leaving the country more divided over its direction than ever before.
What began as an unexpected appointment has become an era—one that future historians may remember as the Roberts Revolution.
