John Roberts
Born	January 27, 1955 Buffalo, New York

John Glover Roberts, Jr. (born January 27, 1955) is the seventeenth Chief Justice of the United States. Roberts previously was a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, spent 14 years in private law practice and held positions in Republican administrations in the U.S. Department of Justice and Office of the White House Counsel.

Contents 1 Personal life, education, and memberships 2 Private Practice 3 U.S. Court of Appeals 4 U.S. Supreme Court 4.1 Nomination and confirmation 4.2 Supreme Court career 5 Jurisprudence 5.1 The Commerce Clause 5.2 Federalism 5.3 Judicial activism and deference to legislatures 5.4 Roe v. Wade 6 Judicial opinions 6.1 Fourth and Fifth Amendments 6.2 Military tribunals 6.3 Environmental regulation 7 Bibliography of articles by John G. Roberts, Jr. 8 Sources 8.1 News articles 8.2 Government/official biographies 8.3 Other 9 Notes 10 External links

Personal life, education, and memberships

Roberts was born in Buffalo, New York, on January 27, 1955, son of John G. Roberts and Rosemary Podrasky. His father was an executive with Bethlehem Steel. When Roberts was in second grade, his family moved to the affluent beachside town of Long Beach, Indiana. He grew up in a devoutly Roman Catholic, upper middle-class home along with three sisters: Kathy, Peggy and Barb.

Roberts graduated first in his high school class of 1973 from La Lumiere School, a Catholic boarding school in LaPorte, Indiana. He studied six years of Latin and some French, and was known for his devotion to his studies. He was also captain of his football team, where he referred to himself as a "slow-footed linebacker." He also wrestled, participated in choir and drama, co-edited the school newspaper, and served on the athletic council and the Executive Committee of the Student Council.

Following high school, Roberts entered Harvard University as a sophomore. Roberts spent his summers working in a steel mill to help pay for college. While a student at Harvard, he won the William Scott Ferguson award for his essay, Marxism and Bolshevism: Theory and Practice. He received his bachelor's degree summa cum laude in 1976. Roberts then attended Harvard Law School, where he served as managing editor of the Harvard Law Review and graduated magna cum laude in 1979.

Roberts is currently a member of the American Academy of Appellate Lawyers, the American Law Institute, the Edward Coke Appellate American Inn of Court and the National Legal Center for the Public Interest.^[1] He serves on the Federal Appellate Rules Advisory Committee. Roberts's name is listed in the Federalist Society's 1997-1998 "Leadership Directory," though he has denied ever being a member.

Roberts is married to Jane (Sullivan) Roberts, a lawyer and former legal counsel for Feminists for Life. They live in the Washington, DC suburb of Bethesda, Maryland where they are members of a Roman Catholic parish led by noted conservative Msgr. Peter Vaghi. The Robertses adopted two infants in 2000: Josephine ("Josie") and Jack Roberts. Jack's dancing during Bush's White House introduction of his father brought the four-year-old international media attention. Josie and Jack attend a private Catholic school run by Opus Dei.

Private Practice

After graduating from law school, Roberts served as a law clerk for Judge Henry Friendly on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals for one year. From 1980 to 1981, he served as a law clerk to then-Associate Justice William Rehnquist on the United States Supreme Court. From 1981 to 1982, he served in the Reagan administration as a Special Assistant to U.S. Attorney General William French Smith. From 1982 to 1986, Roberts served as Associate Counsel to the President under White House Counsel Fred Fielding .

Roberts entered private law practice in 1986 as an associate at the Washington, D.C.-based law firm of Hogan & Hartson, but left to serve in the first Bush administration as Principal Deputy Solicitor General, from 1989 to 1993. Roberts has argued 39 cases for the government before the Supreme Court, prevailing in 25 of them. He represented 18 states in United States v. Microsoft. In 1992, George H.W. Bush nominated Roberts to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, but no Senate vote was held, and Roberts's nomination expired when Bush left office after losing the 1992 presidential election. Roberts returned to Hogan & Hartson as a partner, and became the head of the firm's appellate practice. In this capacity, Roberts argued several cases before the Supreme Court:

Case	Argued	Decided	Represented
First Options v. Kaplan [2], 514 U.S. 938	March 22, 1995	May 22, 1995	Respondent
Adams v. Robertson, 520 U.S. 83	January 14, 1997	March 3, 1997	Respondent
Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government [3], 522 U.S. 520	December 10, 1997	February 25, 1998	Petitioner
Feltner v. Columbia Pictures Television, Inc. [4], 534 U.S. 1127	January 21, 1998	March 31, 1998	Petitioner
NCAA v. Smith [5], 525 U.S. 459	January 20, 1999	February 23, 1999	Petitioner
Rice v. Cayetano [6], 528 U.S. 495	October 6, 1999	February 23, 2000	Respondent
Eastern Associated Coal Corp. v. Mine Workers [7], 531 U.S. 57	October 2, 2000	November 28, 2000	Petitioner
TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc. [8], 532 U.S. 23	November 29, 2000	March 20, 2001	Petitioner
Toyota Motor Mfg v. Williams [9], 534 U.S. 184	November 7, 2001	January 8, 2002	Petitioner
Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency [10], 535 U.S. 302	January 7, 2002	April 23, 2002	Respondent
Rush Prudential HMO, Inc. v. Moran [11], 536 U.S. 355	January 16, 2002	June 20, 2002	Petitioner
Gonzaga University v. Doe [12], 536 U.S. 273	April 24, 2002	June 20, 2002	Petitioner
Barnhart v. Peabody Coal Co. [13], 537 U.S. 149	October 8, 2002	January 15, 2003	Respondent
Smith v. Doe [14], 538 U.S. 84	November 13, 2002	March 5, 2003	Petitioner

U.S. Court of Appeals

George W. Bush nominated Roberts to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia on May 9, 2001, but the nomination — along with 29 others — failed to make it out of the Democrat-controlled U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary. He was renominated on January 7, 2003, to replace James L. Buckley. His nomination was approved by the Judiciary Committee by a vote of 16 to three, with Senators Richard Durbin, Charles Schumer and Ted Kennedy opposing. However, he was approved by the Senate under unanimous consent and he received his commission on June 2, 2003.

At the time Roberts left private practice to join the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, he reported in a financial disclosure filing in 2005 that he earned a salary of $1,044,399, had many stocks (including pharmaceutical and technology investments, such as holdings in Pfizer and Procter & Gamble), and a one-eighth interest in a cottage in the village of Knocklong, County Limerick, Republic of Ireland, his wife's ancestral homeland, valued at $15,000 or less.^[15]

U.S. Supreme Court

Nomination and confirmation

Main article: John Roberts Supreme Court nomination and hearings

On July 19, 2005, President Bush nominated Roberts to the U.S. Supreme Court, to fill an anticipated vacancy which would be left by the announced retirement of Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Roberts was the first Supreme Court nominee since Stephen Breyer in 1994. Bush announced Roberts's nomination in a live, nationwide television broadcast from the East Room of the White House.

Following the September 3, 2005 death of Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, Bush withdrew Roberts's nomination as O'Connor's successor, and on September 6, announced of Roberts's new nomination to the position of Chief Justice. Bush asked the Senate to expedite Roberts's confirmation hearings in order to fill the vacancy by the beginning of the Supreme Court's session in early October. John Roberts follows in the footsteps of former Chief Justice Warren Burger who was also elevated to the position of Chief Justice directly from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

On September 22 the Senate Judiciary Committee approved Roberts's nomination by a vote of 13-5, with Senators Ted Kennedy, Richard Durbin, Charles Schumer, Joe Biden and Dianne Feinstein the dissenting votes. Roberts was confirmed by the full Senate on September 29, passing by a margin of 78-22. All Republicans, 22 Democrats and the lone Independent voted for Roberts; 22 Democrats voted against him. Due to Republican control of the Senate, Roberts's approval was never truly in doubt, but the final vote tally in support of Roberts was higher than many on both sides had expected only a few weeks earlier. Reasons for the total included Roberts's performance during his confirmation hearings, private conversations senators had with Roberts in the days before the final vote, and a strategy by some Democrats in preparation for the upcoming confirmation battle over Sandra Day O'Connor's seat.

Supreme Court Career

On September 29, just hours after his Senate confirmation, he took the Constitutional oath of office, which was administered by Associate Justice John Paul Stevens at the White House. He took the judicial oath provided for by the Judiciary Act of 1789 on October 3, 2005 at the U.S. Supreme Court building, prior to the first oral arguments of the 2005 term. At 50, Roberts is the youngest man to have become Chief Justice since John Marshall (that said, many Associate Justices, including Justices Scalia and Thomas, have joined the Court younger). John Roberts received more Senate votes supporting his nomination than any other nominee for Chief Justice in American history. Other nominees have received higher percentages of votes, but this is usually attributable to the fact that all opposing senators voted on this nomination while, in other chief justice votes, many in opposition simply did not vote or were not present when the vote took place. It was also traditional before the latter 20th century to approve many nominees by voice vote, in which the number in opposition was not noted.

Roberts presided over his first oral arguments on October 3, 2005, when the Court began its 2005-2006 session. He presided over oral arguments in separate cases involving labor law and a Kansas case on whether states may tax motor fuel sold on Indian reservations, interrupting periodically to ask questions or advise lawyers as to when their time was up. Ending a week's worth of idle speculation, Roberts opted to wear a plain black robe on his first day, eschewing the gold sleeve-bars added to the Chief Justice's robes by his predecessor.

Jurisprudence

During Judiciary Committee hearings on his nomination to the circuit court, Roberts testified about his views on jurisprudence.[16]

The Commerce Clause

[S]tarting with McCulloch v. Maryland, Chief Justice John Marshall gave a very broad and expansive reading to the powers of the Federal Government and explained that — and I don't remember the exact quote — but if the ends be legitimate, then any means chosen to achieve them are within the power of the Federal Government, and cases interpreting that, throughout the years, have come down. Certainly, by the time Lopez was decided, many of us had learned in law school that it was just sort of a formality to say that interstate commerce was affected and that cases weren't going to be thrown out that way. Lopez certainly breathed new life into the Commerce Clause. I think it remains to be seen, in subsequent decisions, how rigorous a showing, and in many cases, it is just a showing. It's not a question of an abstract fact, does this affect interstate commerce or not, but has this body, the Congress, demonstrated the impact on interstate commerce that drove them to legislate? That's a very important factor. It wasn't present in Lopez at all. I think the members of Congress had heard the same thing I had heard in law school, that this is unimportant — and they hadn't gone through the process of establishing a record in that case.[17]

Federalism

[S]imply because you have a problem that needs addressing, it’s not necessarily the case that Federal legislation is the best way to address it...The constitutional limitation doesn’t turn on whether it’s a good idea. There is not a ‘‘good idea’’ clause in the Constitution. It can be a bad idea, but certainly still satisfy the constitutional requirements.[18]

Judicial activism and deference to legislatures

[T]he Supreme Court has, throughout its history, on many occasions described the deference that is due to legislative judgments. Justice Holmes described assessing the constitutionality of an act of Congress as the gravest duty that the Supreme Court is called upon to perform …[I]t’s a principle that is easily stated and needs to be observed in practice, as well as in theory. Now, the Court, of course, has the obligation, and has been recognized since Marbury v. Madison, to assess the constitutionality of acts of Congress, and when those acts are challenged, it is the obligation of the Court to say what the law is. The determination of when deference to legislative policy judgments goes too far and becomes abdication of the judicial responsibility, and when scrutiny of those judgments goes too far on the part of the judges and becomes what I think is properly called judicial activism, that is certainly the central dilemma of having an unelected, as you describe it correctly, undemocratic judiciary in a democratic republic.[19]

In referring to Brown v. Board that overturned school segregation: "The Court in that case, of course, overruled a prior decision. I don't think that constitutes judicial activism because obviously if the decision is wrong, it should be overruled. That's not activism. That's applying the law correctly."

Roe v. Wade

In his Senate testimony, Roberts acknowledged that, on the Circuit Court, he would have an obligation to follow precedents established by the Supreme Court, including the controversial decision invalidating many restrictions on the right to an abortion. He stated: "Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land… There is nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent, as well as Casey." [20] (See John Roberts Supreme Court nomination and hearings for speculation about Roberts's current views, concerns about these views raised in the hearings, and the potential impact they might have on his actions in the Supreme Court.)

Judicial opinions

Roberts has authored 49 opinions in his two years in the D.C. Circuit but has elicited only two dissents on his decisions, and on the many other cases he has heard in that time, he has authored only three dissenting opinions of his own. Because of this short record, Roberts does not have an extensive case history from which a general approach to the Constitution can be determined, and he appears not to have publicly stated his views on the subject. He has even said that "I do not think beginning with an all-encompassing approach to constitutional interpretation is the best way to faithfully construe the document."[21] Cass Sunstein, a law professor at the University of Chicago argues that in general, Roberts appears to be a judicial minimalist, emphasizing precedent, as opposed to an originalism-oriented or rights-focused jurist. "Judge Roberts's opinions thus far are careful, lawyerly and narrow. They avoid broad pronouncements. They do not try to reorient the law."[22].

His past rulings have included the following issues:

Fourth and Fifth Amendments

The D.C. Circuit case Hedgepeth v. Washington Metro Authority, 386 F.3d 1148, involved a twelve-year-old girl who was, according to the Washington Post, asked if she had any drugs in her possession, searched for drugs, taken into custody, handcuffed, driven to police headquarters, booked and fingerprinted because she violated a publicly-advertised zero tolerance "no eating" policy in a Washington D.C. metro station by eating a single french fry. Roberts wrote for a 3-0 panel affirming a district court decision that dismissed the girl's complaint, which was predicated on the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, specifically the claim that an adult would have only received a citation for the same offense, while children must be detained until parents are notified.

Roberts began his opinion by noting, "No one is very happy about the events that led to this litigation," and pointing out that the policies under which the girl was apprehended had since been changed. Because age discrimination is allowed under previous jurisprudence if there is any rational basis for it, only weak state interests were required to justify the policy. "Because parents and guardians play an essential role in that rehabilitative process, it is reasonable for the District to seek to ensure their participation, and the method chosen — detention until the parent is notified and retrieves the child — certainly does that, in a way issuing a citation might not." Roberts concluded that the age discrimination and detention in this case were constitutional, noting that "the question before us... is not whether these policies were a bad idea, but whether they violated the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution.", language reminiscent of Justice Potter Stewart's dissent in Griswold v. Connecticut, in which Justice Stewart wrote, "We are not asked in this case to say whether we think this law is unwise, or even asinine. We are asked to hold that it violates the United States Constitution. And that, I cannot do."

Military tribunals

In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, Roberts was part of a unanimous panel overturning the district court ruling and upholding military tribunals set up by the Bush administration for trying terrorism suspects known as enemy combatants. Circuit Judge A. Raymond Randolph, writing for the court, ruled that Hamdan, a driver for al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden [23], could be tried by a military court because

1. the military commission had the approval of Congress;
2. the Third Geneva Convention is a treaty between nations and as such it does not confer individual rights and remedies enforceable in U.S. courts;
3. even if the Convention could be enforced in U.S. courts, it would not be of assistance to Hamdan at the time because, for a conflict such as the war against al-Qaeda (considered by the court as a separate war from that against Afghanistan itself) that is not between two countries, it guarantees only a certain standard of judicial procedure without speaking to the jurisdiction in which the prisoner must be tried.

The court held open the possibility of judicial review of the results of the military commission after the current proceedings have ended.[24]

Environmental regulation

On the U.S. Court of Appeals, Roberts wrote a dissenting opinion regarding Rancho Viejo, LLC v. Norton, 323 F.3d 1062, a case involving the protection of a rare California toad under the Endangered Species Act. When the court denied a rehearing en banc, 334 F.3d 1158 (D.C. Cir. 2003), Roberts dissented, arguing that the original opinion was wrongly decided because he found it inconsistent with United States v. Lopez and United States v. Morrison in that it focused on the effects of the regulation, rather than the taking of the toads themselves, on interstate commerce. In Roberts's view, the Commerce Clause of the Constitution did not permit the government to regulate activity affecting what he called "a hapless toad" that "for reasons of its own, lives its entire life in California." He said that reviewing the case could allow the court "alternative grounds for sustaining application of the Act that may be more consistent with Supreme Court precedent."

Bibliography of articles by John G. Roberts, Jr.

The University of Michigan Law Library (External Links, below) has compiled fulltext links to these articles and a number of briefs and arguments.

• Developments in the Law – Zoning, "The Takings Clause," 91 Harv. L. Rev. 1462 (1978). (Section III of a longer article beginning on p. 1427)
• Comment, "Contract Clause – Legislative Alteration of Private Pension Agreements: Allied Structural Steel Co. v. Spannaus," 92 Harv. L. Rev. 86 (1978). (Subsection C of a longer article beginning on p. 57)
• New Rules and Old Pose Stumbling Blocks in High Court Cases, The Legal Times, February 26, 1990, co-authored with E. Barrett Prettyman, Jr.
• Article III Limits on Statutory Standing, 42 Duke L. J. 1219 (1992-1993).
• Riding the Coattails of the Solicitor General, The Legal Times, March 29, 1993.
• The New Solicitor General and the Power of the Amicus, The Wall Street Journal, May 5, 1993.
• The 1992-1993 Supreme Court, Public Interest Law Review 107 (1994).
• Forfeitures: Does Innocence Matter?, New Jersey Law Journal, October 9, 1995.
• Thoughts on Presenting an Effective Oral Argument, School Law in Review (1997). Link
• The Bush Panel, 2003 BYU L. Rev. 62 (2003). (Part of a tribute to Rex. E. Lee beginning on p. 1. "The Bush Panel" contains a speech by Roberts.)
• Oral Advocacy and the Re-emergence of a Supreme Court Bar, 30 J. Supr. Ct. Hist. 68 (2005).

Sources

News articles

• "Roberts Listed in Federalist Society '97-98 Directory". Washington Post. July 25, 2005. 14
• "Appellate judge Roberts is Bush high-court pick." MSNBC. July 19, 2005. [25]
• Argetsinger, Amy, and Jo Becker. "The nominee as a young pragmatist: under Reagan, Roberts tackled tough issues." Washington Post. July 22, 2005. [26]
• Barbash, Fred, et al: "Bush to nominate Judge John G. Roberts Jr." Washington Post. July 19, 2005. [27]
• Becker, Jo, and R. Jeffrey Smith. "Record of accomplishment—and some contradictions." Washington Post. July 20, 2005. [28]
• Bumuller, Elisabeth, and David Stout: "President chooses conservative judge as nominee to court." New York Times. July 19, 2005. [29]
• "Bush: Meeting with Roberts during recount wasn't political." Associated Press. July 23, 2005. [30]
• Entous, Adam. "Bush picks conservative Roberts for Supreme Court." Reuters. July 19, 2005. [31]
• Kallestad, Brent. "Roberts helped counsel Jeb Bush." Associated Press. July 21, 2005. [32]
• Lane, Charles. "Federalist affiliation misstated: Roberts does not belong to group." Washington Post. July 21, 2005. [33]
• Lane, Charles. "Short record as judge is under a microscope." Washington Post. July 21, 2005. [34]
• Groppe, Maureen, and John Tuohy. "If you ask John where he's from, he says Indiana." Indianapolis Star. July 20, 2005. [35]
• McFeatters, Ann. "John G. Roberts Jr. is Bush choice for Supreme Court." Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. July 19, 2005. [36]
• Riechmann, Deb. "Federal judge Roberts is Bush's choice." Associated Press. July 20, 2005. [37]
• "Roberts: A smart, self-effacing 'Eagle Scout.'" Associated Press. July 20, 2005. [38]
• "Who Is John G. Roberts Jr.?" ABC News. July 19, 2005. [39]

Government/official biographies

• "President announces Judge John Roberts as Supreme Court nominee." Office of the Press Secretary, Executive Office of the President. [40]
• "Roberts, John G., Jr." Federal Judicial Center. [41]
• "John G. Roberts biography." Office of Legal Policy, U.S. Department of Justice. [42]
• "Biographical Sketches of the Judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit." United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. [43]
• John G. Roberts Questionnaire for Appeals Court Confirmation Hearing (p. 297-339) and responses to Questions from Various Senators (p. 443-461) [44] (large PDF file)

Other

• Coffin, Shannen W. "Meet John Roberts: The President Makes the Best Choice." National Review Online. July 19, 2005. [45]
• "Former Hogan & Hartson partner nominated for the U.S. Supreme Court." Hogan & Hartson, LLP. July 20, 2005. [46]
• Goldman, Jerry. "John G. Roberts, Jr." Oyez. [47]
• "John G. Roberts, Jr. Fact Sheet" La Lumiere School. [48]
• "John G. Roberts federal campaign contributions." Newsmeat.com. July 19, 2005. [49]
• "John G. Roberts Jr." DKosopedia. July 19, 2005. [50]
• "Progress for America: Support for the Confirmation of John G. Roberts" [51]
• "Report of the Alliance for Justice: Opposition to the Confirmation of John G. Roberts to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit." Alliance for Justice. [52] (PDF file)

Notes

1. ^  "Wexler: Bush's Supreme Court pick insulting to disenfranchised Florida voters." Office of Representative Robert Wexler. July 20, 2004. [53]
   Kallestad, Brent. "Roberts helped counsel Jeb Bush." Associated Press. July 21, 2005. [54].
   It is possible this will be a subject of inquiry during the Senate confirmation hearings.
2. ^  "Roberts: A smart, self-effacing 'Eagle Scout.'" Associated Press. July 20, 2005. [55]
3. ^  "Bush: Meeting with Roberts during recount wasn't political." Associated Press. July 23, 2005. [56]
4. ^  Lane, Charles. "Federalist affiliation misstated: Roberts does not belong to group." Washington Post. July 21, 2005. [57]
   Although in the days immediately following his nomination Roberts was widely reported as being a member of the Federalist Society—by media outlets including CNN, the Los Angeles Times, the Legal Times, and the Washington Post—and he has spoken at Federalist Society events, Roberts subsequently stated that he never has paid the group's $50 membership fee, and does not recall ever having been a member, although the 1997–1998 directory lists him as a member of the steering committee.

External links

• Judge Roberts's Published Opinions in a searchable database
• Search and browse the transcripts from Judge Roberts's confirmation hearing
• John Roberts at the Notable Names Database
• Transcript of Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the nomination of John Roberts to the D.C. circuit (Roberts Q&A on pages 17-79) plain text available here
• Bush Picks Roberts to Be Chief Justice, Replacing Rehnquist
• FindLaw Lawyer Profile
• List of Circuit Judge Roberts's opinions for the DC Circuit
• University of Michigan Law Library fulltext links
• Federalist Society
• A summary of media-related cases handled by Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. from The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, July 21, 2005
• Experts Analyze Supreme Court Nominee John Roberts's Legal Record
• Profile of the Nominee - The Washington Post
• A Senate Hearing Primer - The New York Times
• Video and Transcripts From the Roberts Confirmation Hearings - The New York Times
• SCOTUSblog
• Supreme Court Nomination Blog
• Senate Vote on the Roberts nomination
• List of Chief Justices, including John Roberts, Jr.
• On first day, Roberts sets no-nonsense tone - The Boston Globe

Preceded by: William H. Rehnquist

Chief Justice of the United States September 29, 2005–present

Succeeded by: —

Chief Justices of the United States of America

John Jay | John Rutledge | Oliver Ellsworth | John Marshall | Roger B. Taney | Salmon P. Chase | Morrison Waite | Melville Fuller | Edward Douglass White | William Howard Taft | Charles Evans Hughes | Harlan Fiske Stone | Fred Vinson | Earl Warren | Warren Burger | William Rehnquist | John Roberts

The Roberts Court
John Glover Roberts, Jr. (2005 to present)
2005–present:	J.P. Stevens | S.D. O'Connor | A. Scalia | A. Kennedy | D. Souter | C. Thomas | R.B. Ginsburg | S. Breyer

John G. Roberts Jr. (born in Buffalo, New York, 1955) is a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, having been nominated by President George W. Bush on May 9, 2001, and confirmed by the United States Senate on May 8, 2003.

Roberts graduated from Harvard College in 1976. Roberts receivied his Juris Doctorate from the Harvard Law School in 1979.

He was a law clerk for Henry Friendly, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 1979-1980, and for Associate Justice William Rehnquist, Supreme Court of the United States, 1980-1981. He then took a job as special assistant to William French Smith, the attorney general, U.S. Department of Justice, 1981-1982, before being appointed associate counsel to President Ronald Reagan, White House Counsel's Office, 1982-1986.

He entered private practice in 1986 as an associate at the Washington D.C. law firm of Hogan & Hartson, but left to serve from 1989-1993 as Principal Deputy Solicitor General, U.S. Department of Justice. He returned to Hogan and Harston in 1993 as a partner where he remained until he was appointed to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. In private practice and as Principal Deputy Solicitor General he has argued more than 30 cases in front of the United States Supreme Court.

Roberts has been mentioned frequently as being near the top of the list of potential nominees to the Supreme Court of the United States, should one of the current justices leave the Court during George W. Bush's presidency.

John G. Roberts, 50, is considered a GOP heavyweight amid the largely Democratic Washington legal establishment.

Roberts was appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in 2003 by President Bush. (He was also nominated by President George H.W. Bush but never received a Senate vote). He practiced law at Hogan & Hartson in the District from 1986 to 1989 and from 1993 to 2003.

From 1989 to 1993, he was the principal deputy solicitor general in the George H.W. Bush administration, helping formulate the administration's position in Supreme Court cases. In the Reagan administration, he was an aide to Attorney General William French Smith from 1981 to 1982 and an aide to White House counsel Fred Fielding from 1982 to 1986.

With his impeccable credentials -- Roberts attended Harvard College and Harvard Law School, clerked for then-Justice William H. Rehnquist Jr. on the Supreme Court and has argued frequently before the court -- the question marks about him have always been ideological. His GOP loyalties are undoubted, earning him the opposition of liberal advocacy groups, but he is not a "movement conservative," and some on the party's right doubt his commitment to their cause. His paper record is thin: As deputy solicitor general in 1990, he argued in favor of a government regulation that banned abortion-related counseling by federally funded family-planning programs. A line in his brief noted the Bush administration's belief that Roe v. Wade should be overruled.

On the D.C. Circuit, Roberts voted with two colleagues to uphold the arrest and detention of a 12-year-old girl for eating french fries on a Metro train, though his opinion noted, "No one is very happy about the events that led to this litigation." In another case, Roberts wrote a dissenting opinion that suggested Congress might lack the constitutional power to regulate the treatment of a certain species of wildlife.

-- Charles Lane

John G. Roberts

John G. Roberts, 50, sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. He was nominated in 2003 by President George W. Bush. (He was also nominated by the first President Bush, but never received a Senate vote). He has been a prominent GOP attorney in private practice in Washington and between 1989 and 1993 he was the Principal Deputy Solicitor General in the first Bush administration. During the Reagan administration, he served as an aide to Attorney General William French Smith from 1981-1982 and as a an aide to White House Counsel Fred Fielding from 1982-1986. Roberts attended Harvard College and Harvard Law School, clerked for Justice William H. Rehnquist on the Supreme Court and has argued frequently before the court.

Roberts' nomination to the appellate bench attracted support from both ends of the ideological spectrum. 

Some 146 members of the D.C. Bar signed a letter urging his confirmation, including officials from the Clinton administration. The letter stated: "He is one of the very best and most highly respected appellate lawyers in the nation, with a deserved reputation as a brilliant writer and oral advocate. He is also a wonderful professional colleague both because of his enormous skills and because of his unquestioned integrity and fair-mindedness."
Key Decisions and Writings:

Roberts is seen as a GOP heavyweight, but he's not seen as a "movement conservative" so some right-wing Republicans are skeptical of Roberts.
His paper record is thin: as Deputy Solicitor General in 1990, he argued in favor of a government regulation that banned abortion-related counseling by federally-funded family planning programs. A line in his brief noted the Bush administration's belief that Roe v. Wade should be overruled, and this has naturally concerned liberals.
As a judge on the D.C. Circuit, Roberts wrote a dissenting opinion that suggested Congress might lack the power under the Constitution's Commerce Clause to regulate the treatment of a certain species of wildlife.