The Chief Justice in many countries is the name for the presiding member of a Supreme Court in Commonwealth or other countries with an Anglo-Saxon justice system based on English common law, such as the Supreme Court of Canada, the Constitutional Court of South Africa, the Court of Final Appeal of Hong Kong, the Supreme Court of India, the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the Supreme Court of Nepal, the Supreme Court of Ireland, the Supreme Court of New Zealand, the High Court of Australia, the Supreme Court of the United States, or provincial or state supreme courts. In England and Wales and Northern Ireland, the equivalent position is the Lord Chief Justice and in Scotland the equivalent is the Lord President of the Court of Session.

The Chief Justice can be appointed to the post in many ways, but in many nations the presiding position is commonly given to the senior-most justice in the court, while in the United States it is often the President's most important political nomination, subject to approval by the United States Senate. Although the title of this top American jurist is, by statute, Chief Justice of the United States, the term "Chief Justice of the Supreme Court" is often used unofficially.

In some states the Chief Justice has another title, e.g. president of the Supreme Court. In other cases the title of Chief Justice is used, but the court has another name, e.g. the Supreme Court of Judicature in colonial (British) Ceylon, the Court of Appeals in Maryland.

Competence[link]

The Chief Justice is often responsible for serving as chair during private supreme court deliberations, and is often first to voice their opinion. However, most Supreme Courts are non-hierarchical, meaning the Chief Justice does not necessarily have any direct power of control over the actions of the other judges.^{[citation needed]} Their personal ruling is equal in weight to the rulings of any associate judges on the court.

In several countries, the Chief Justice is second in line to the Office of President or Governor General, should the incumbent die or resign, or third, if there is a Vice President or Lieutenant Governor General. For example, if the Governor General of Canada is unable to perform his or her duties, the Chief Justice of Canada performs the duties of the Governor General.

Apart from their intrinsic role in litigation, they may have additional competences, such as "swearing in" high officers of state; for instance, the Chief Justice of the United States traditionally administers the oath of office at the inauguration ceremony of the President of the United States, as does the Chief Justice of South Africa at the inauguration of the President of South Africa.

List of Chief Justice positions[link]

• Bailiff of Guernsey
• Bailiff of Jersey
• Chief Justice of Albania
• Chief Justice of Australia
• Chief Justice of Bangladesh
• Chief Justice of Belize
• Chief Justice of Canada
• Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Estonia
• Chief Justice of Fiji
• Chief Justice of Hong Kong
• Chief Justice of India
• Chief Justice of Ireland
• Chief Justice of the Republic of Kenya
• Chief Justice of Liberia
• Chief Justice of Malta
• Chief Justice of Malaysia
• Chief Justice of the Federated States of Micronesia
• Chief Justice of Namibia
• Chief Justice of New Zealand
• Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria
• Chief Justice of Norway
• Chief Justice of Pakistan
• Chief Justices of the Federal Shariat Court
• Chief Justice of the Philippines
• Chief Justice of Singapore
• Chief Justice of Sri Lanka
• Chief Justice of South Africa
• Chief Justice of Tanzania
• Chief Justice of Trinidad and Tobago
• Chief Justice of Zanzibar
• Chief Justice of the United States
• Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales
• Lord Chief Justice of Ireland
• Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland

See also[link]

• Associate justice
• Puisne judge
• Chief Justice of the Common Pleas
• President of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
• Lord President
• Chief judge

Sources and references[link]

John Roberts
17th Chief Justice of the United States
Incumbent
Assumed office September 29, 2005
Appointed by	George W. Bush
Preceded by	William Rehnquist
Judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
In office June 2, 2003 – September 29, 2005
Appointed by	George W. Bush
Preceded by	James Buckley
Succeeded by	Vacant
Personal details
Born	John Glover Roberts, Jr. (1955-01-27) January 27, 1955 (age 57) Buffalo, New York, U.S.
Spouse(s)	Jane Sullivan
Alma mater	Harvard University

John Glover Roberts, Jr. (born January 27, 1955) is the 17th Chief Justice of the United States. He has served since 2005, having been nominated by President George W. Bush after the death of Chief Justice William Rehnquist. He has been described as having a conservative judicial philosophy in his jurisprudence.

Roberts grew up in northern Indiana and was educated in a private school before attending Harvard College and Harvard Law School, where he was managing editor of the Harvard Law Review. After being admitted to the bar, he served as a law clerk for William Rehnquist before taking a position in the Attorney General's office during the Reagan Administration. He went on to serve the Reagan Administration and the George H. W. Bush administration in the Department of Justice and the Office of the White House Counsel, before spending fourteen years in private law practice. During this time, he argued thirty-nine cases before the Supreme Court.

In 2003, he was appointed as a judge of the D.C. Circuit by President George W. Bush, where he served until his nomination to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. When Chief Justice Rehnquist died before Roberts's confirmation hearings, Bush renominated Roberts to fill the newly vacant center seat.

Early years[link]

Roberts was born in Buffalo, New York, on January 27, 1955, the son of Rosemary (née Podrasky) and John Glover "Jack" Roberts, Sr. (1928–2008). His father was a plant manager with Bethlehem Steel.^[1] When Roberts was in fourth grade, his family moved to the beachside town of Long Beach, Indiana. He grew up with three sisters: Kathy, Peggy, and Barbara.

Roberts attended Notre Dame Elementary School, a Roman Catholic grade school in Long Beach, and then La Lumiere School, a Roman Catholic boarding school in LaPorte, Indiana, where he was an excellent student and athlete.^[2] He studied five years of Latin (in four years),^[1] some French, and was known generally for his devotion to his studies. He was captain of the football team (he later described himself as a "slow-footed linebacker"), and was a regional champion in wrestling. He participated in choir and drama, co-edited the school newspaper, and served on the athletic council and the executive committee of the student council.^[1]

He attended Harvard College, graduating with an A.B. summa cum laude in history in three years. He then attended Harvard Law School where he was the managing editor of the Harvard Law Review.^[1] He graduated from law school with a J.D. magna cum laude in 1979.^[3]

Early legal career[link]

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.^[1] Roberts frequently cites Judge Friendly in his opinions. From 1980 to 1981, he clerked for 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.^[1] 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.^[4]

Roberts left Hogan & Hartson to serve in the George H. W. Bush administration as Principal Deputy Solicitor General from 1989 to 1993^[1] and as Acting Solicitor General for the purposes of at least one case when Ken Starr had a conflict.^[5][6]

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 addition to serving as an adjunct faculty member at the Georgetown University Law Center. During this time, Roberts argued 39 cases before the Supreme Court, prevailing in 25 of them.^{[citation needed]} He represented 18 states in United States v. Microsoft.^{[citation needed]} Those cases include:

During the late 1990s, while working for Hogan & Hartson, Roberts served as a member of the steering committee of the Washington, D.C. chapter of the conservative Federalist Society.^[7]

In 2000, Roberts traveled to Tallahassee, Florida to advise Jeb Bush, then the Governor of Florida, concerning the latter's actions in the Florida election recount during the presidential election.^[8]

On the D.C. Circuit[link]

On May 10, 2001, President George W. Bush nominated Roberts for a different seat on the D.C. Circuit, which had been vacated by James L. Buckley. The Senate at the time, however, was controlled by the Democrats, who were in conflict with Bush over his judicial nominees. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-VT, refused to give Roberts a hearing in the 107th Congress.^[9] The GOP regained control of the Senate on January 7, 2003, and Bush resubmitted Roberts's nomination that day. Roberts was confirmed on May 8, 2003,^[10] and received his commission on June 2, 2003. During his two year tenure on the D.C. Circuit, Roberts authored 49 opinions, eliciting two dissents from other judges, and authoring three dissents of his own.

Notable decisions on the D.C. Circuit include the following:

Fourth and Fifth Amendments[link]

Hedgepeth v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, 386 F.3d 1148,^[11] involved a 12-year-old girl who was arrested, searched, handcuffed, driven to police headquarters, booked, and fingerprinted after she violated a publicly advertised zero tolerance "no eating" policy in a Washington Metro station by eating a single french fry. She was released to her mother three hours later. She sued, alleging that an adult would have only received a citation for the same offense, while children must be detained until parents are notified. The D.C. Circuit unanimously affirmed the district court's dismissal of the case, which was predicated on alleged violations of the Fourth Amendment (unreasonable search and seizure) and Fifth Amendment (equal protection).

"No one is very happy about the events that led to this litigation," Roberts wrote, and noted that the policies under which the girl was apprehended had since been changed. Because age discrimination is evaluated using a rational basis test, however, only weak state interests were required to justify the policy, and the panel concluded they were present. "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." The court concluded that the policy and detention 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. "We are not asked in this case to say whether we think this law is unwise, or even asinine," Stewart had written; "[w]e are asked to hold that it violates the United States Constitution. And that, I cannot do."

Military tribunals[link]

In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, Roberts was part of a unanimous Circuit 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 Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a driver for al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden,^[12] could be tried by a military court because:

1. the military commission had the approval of the United States 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.^[13] This decision was overturned on June 29, 2006 by the Supreme Court in a 5-3 decision, with Roberts not participating due to his prior ruling as a circuit judge.

Environmental regulation[link]

Roberts wrote a dissent in 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 panel opinion was inconsistent with United States v. Lopez and United States v. Morrison in that it incorrectly focused on whether the regulation substantially affects interstate commerce rather than on whether the regulated activity does. 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 panel decision would allow the court "alternative grounds for sustaining application of the Act that may be more consistent with Supreme Court precedent."^[14]

Nomination and confirmation to the Supreme Court[link]

On July 19, 2005, President Bush nominated Roberts to the U.S. Supreme Court to fill a vacancy that would be created by the retirement of 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 at 9 p.m. Eastern Time.

John Roberts appears in the background, while President Bush is announcing his nomination for the position of Chief Justice.

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist died on September 3, 2005, while Roberts's confirmation was still pending before the Senate. Shortly thereafter, on September 5, Bush withdrew Roberts's nomination as O'Connor's successor and announced Roberts's new nomination to the position of Chief Justice.^[15] Bush asked the Senate to expedite Roberts's confirmation hearings to fill the vacancy by the beginning of the Supreme Court's session in early October.

Roberts's testimony on his jurisprudence[link]

During his confirmation hearings, Roberts said that he did not have a comprehensive jurisprudential philosophy, and he did "not think beginning with an all-encompassing approach to constitutional interpretation is the best way to faithfully construe the document".^[16][17] Roberts analogized judges to baseball umpires: "[I]t's my job to call balls and strikes, and not to pitch or bat."^[18] Roberts demonstrated an encyclopedic knowledge of Supreme Court precedent, which he discussed without notes. Among the issues he discussed were:

Commerce Clause[link]

"Starting with McCulloch v. Maryland, Chief Justice John Marshall gave a very broad and expansive reading to the powers of the Federal Government and explained generally that 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[link]

Roberts has shown a pragmatic approach to federalism in the past, stating on the radio in 1999:

"We have gotten to the point these days where we think the only way we can show we’re serious about a problem is if we pass a Federal law, whether it is the Violence Against Women Act or anything else. The fact of the matter is conditions are different in different States, and State laws can be more relevant is I think exactly the right term, more attune to the different situations in New York, as opposed to Minnesota, and that is what the Federal system is based on.’

Here he shows deference for the federal nature of the United States of America. Roberts continues (a defence to his pragmatism) by responding to this 1999 radio show quote given by Feingold, in saying:

"just because you have a problem that needs addressing, it’s not necessarily the case that Federal legislation is the best way to address it."

Reviewing Acts of Congress[link]

"The 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. ... It'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."^{[17][citation needed]}

[edit] Stare decisis

On the subject of stare decisis, referring to Brown v. Board, the decision overturning school segregation, Roberts said that "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."^[19]

[edit] Roe v. Wade

While working as a lawyer for the Reagan administration, Roberts wrote legal memos defending administration policies on abortion.^[20] At his nomination hearing Roberts testified that the legal memos represented the views of the administration he was representing at the time and not necessarily his own.^[21] "Senator, I was a staff lawyer; I didn't have a position," Roberts said.^[21] As a lawyer in the George H. W. Bush administration, Roberts signed a legal brief urging the court to overturn Roe v. Wade.^[22]

In private meetings with senators before his confirmation, Roberts testified that Roe was settled law, but added that it was subject to the legal principle of stare decisis,^[23] meaning that while the Court must give some weight to the precedent, it was not legally bound to uphold it.

In his Senate testimony, Roberts said that, while sitting on the Appellate Court, he had an obligation to respect 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." Following the traditional reluctance of nominees to indicate which way they might vote on an issue likely to come before the Supreme Court, he did not explicitly say whether he would vote to overturn either.^[16]

Confirmation[link]

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 casting the dissenting votes. Roberts was confirmed by the full Senate on September 29 by a margin of 78–22.^[24] All Republicans and the one Independent voted for Roberts; the Democrats split evenly, 22–22. Roberts was confirmed by what was, historically, a narrow margin for a Supreme Court justice. However, all subsequent confirmation votes have been even narrower,^[25][26][27] and the nomination of Harriet Miers was never even voted on.

On the U.S. Supreme Court[link]

Roberts is sworn in as Chief Justice by Justice John Paul Stevens in the East Room of the White House, September 29, 2005.

Roberts took the Constitutional oath of office, administered by senior Associate Justice John Paul Stevens at the White House, on September 29. On October 3, he took the judicial oath provided for by the Judiciary Act of 1789 at the United States Supreme Court building, prior to the first oral arguments of the 2005 term. Ending weeks of speculation, Roberts wore a plain black robe, dispensing with the gold sleeve-bars added to the Chief Justice's robes by his predecessor. Then 50, Roberts became the youngest member of the Court, and the third-youngest person to have ever become Chief Justice (John Jay was appointed at age 44 in 1789 while John Marshall was appointed at age 45 in 1801). However, many Associate Justices, such as Clarence Thomas (appointed at age 43) and William O. Douglas (appointed at age 41 in 1939), have joined the Court at a younger age than Roberts.

Since joining the court, Justice Antonin Scalia has said that Roberts "pretty much run[s] the show the same way" as Rehnquist, albeit "let[ting] people go on a little longer at conference ... but [he'll] get over that."^[28] Roberts has been portrayed as a consistent advocate for conservative principles by analysts such as Jeffrey Toobin.^[29]

Seventh Circuit Judge Diane Sykes, surveying Roberts's first term on the court, concluded that his jurisprudence "appears to be strongly rooted in the discipline of traditional legal method, evincing a fidelity to text, structure, history, and the constitutional hierarchy. He exhibits the restraint that flows from the careful application of established decisional rules and the practice of reasoning from the case law. He appears to place great stock in the process-oriented tools and doctrinal rules that guard against the aggregation of judicial power and keep judicial discretion in check: jurisdictional limits, structural federalism, textualism, and the procedural rules that govern the scope of judicial review."^[30]

Early decisions[link]

This biographical section of an article needs additional citations for verification. Please help by adding reliable sources. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous or harmful. (December 2011)

On January 17, 2006, Roberts dissented along with Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas in Gonzales v. Oregon, which held that the Controlled Substances Act does not allow the United States Attorney General to prohibit physicians from prescribing drugs for the assisted suicide of the terminally ill as permitted by an Oregon law. The point of contention in this case was largely one of statutory interpretation, not federalism.

On March 6, 2006, Roberts wrote the unanimous decision in Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights that colleges accepting federal money must allow military recruiters on campus, despite university objections to the Clinton administration-initiated "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

Fourth Amendment[link]

Roberts wrote his first dissent in Georgia v. Randolph (2006). The majority's decision prohibited police from searching a home if both occupants are present but one objected and the other consented. Roberts criticized the majority opinion as inconsistent with prior case law and for partly basing its reasoning on its perception of social custom. He said the social expectations test was flawed because the Fourth Amendment protects a legitimate expectation of privacy, not social expectations.^[31]

Notice and opportunity to be heard[link]

Although Roberts has often sided with Scalia and Thomas, Roberts provided a crucial vote against their position in Jones v. Flowers. In Jones, Roberts sided with liberal justices of the court in ruling that, before a home is seized and sold in a tax-forfeiture sale, due diligence must be demonstrated and proper notification needs to be sent to the owners. Dissenting were Anthony Kennedy along with Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Samuel Alito did not participate, while Roberts's opinion was joined by David Souter, Stephen Breyer, John Paul Stevens, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Abortion[link]

On the Supreme Court, Roberts has indicated he supports some abortion restrictions. In Gonzales v. Carhart (2007), the only significant abortion case the court has decided since Roberts joined, he voted with the majority to uphold the constitutionality of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for a five-justice majority, distinguished Stenberg v. Carhart, and concluded that the court's previous decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey did not prevent Congress from banning the procedure. The decision left the door open for future as-applied challenges, and did not address the broader question of whether Congress had the authority to pass the law.^[32] Justice Clarence Thomas filed a concurring opinion, contending that the Court's prior decisions in Roe v. Wade and Casey should be reversed; Roberts declined to join that opinion.

Equal protection clause[link]

Roberts opposes the use of race in assigning students to particular schools, including for purposes such as maintaining integrated schools.^[33] He sees such plans as discrimination in violation of the constitution's equal protection clause and Brown v. Board of Education.^[33][34] In Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, the court considered two voluntarily adopted school district plans that relied on race to determine which schools certain children may attend. The court had held in Brown that "racial discrimination in public education is unconstitutional,"^[35] and later, that "racial classifications, imposed by whatever federal, state, or local governmental actor, ... are constitutional only if they are narrowly tailored measures that further compelling governmental interests,"^[36] and that this "[n]arrow tailoring ... require[s] serious, good faith consideration of workable race-neutral alternatives."^[37] Roberts cited these cases in writing for the Parents Involved majority, concluding that the school districts had "failed to show that they considered methods other than explicit racial classifications to achieve their stated goals."^[38] In a section of the opinion joined by four other Justices, Roberts added that "[t]he way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."

Free speech[link]

Roberts authored the 2007 student free speech case Morse v. Frederick, ruling that a student in a public school-sponsored activity does not have the right to advocate drug use on the basis that the right to free speech does not invariably prevent the exercise of school discipline.^[39]

On April 20, 2010, in United States v. Stevens, the Supreme Court struck down an animal cruelty law. Roberts, writing for an 8-1 majority, found that a federal statute criminalizing the commercial production, sale, or possession of depictions of cruelty to animals, was an unconstitutional abridgment of the First Amendment right to freedom of speech. The Court held that the statute was substantially overbroad; for example, it could allow prosecutions for selling photos of out-of-season hunting.^[40]

Non-judicial duties of the Chief Justice[link]

"Barack Obama taking the Oath of Office" The full audio recording of Barack Obama and John G. Roberts as Obama is sworn in as the 44th President of the United States during his inauguration on January 20, 2009. (Duration: 45 seconds) "President Obama Re-Takes Oath" Obama retakes takes the Oath of office of the President of the United States at 19:35 EST, January 21, 2009 (00:35 UTC, January 22, 2009) (Duration: 54 seconds).

Problems listening to these files? See media help.

Barack Obama being administered the oath of office by Roberts a second time on January 21, 2009.

As Chief Justice, Roberts also serves in a variety of non-judicial roles, including Chancellor of the Smithsonian Institution and leading the Judicial Conference of the United States. Perhaps the best known of these is the custom of the Chief Justice administering the oath of office at Presidential inaugurations. Roberts debuted in this capacity at the inauguration of Barack Obama on January 20, 2009. (As a Senator, Obama had voted against Roberts's confirmation to the Supreme Court, making the event doubly a first: the first time a president was sworn in by someone whose confirmation he opposed.^[41]) Things did not go smoothly. According to columnist Jeffrey Toobin:

Through intermediaries, Roberts and Obama had agreed how to divide the thirty-five-word oath for the swearing in. Obama was first supposed to repeat the clause “I, Barack Hussein Obama, do solemnly swear.” But, when Obama heard Roberts begin to speak, he interrupted Roberts before he said “do solemnly swear.” This apparently flustered the Chief Justice, who then made a mistake in the next line, inserting the word “faithfully” out of order. Obama smiled, apparently recognizing the error, then tried to follow along. Roberts then garbled another word in the next passage, before correctly reciting, “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.”^[42]

Part of the difficulty was that Roberts did not have the text of the oath with him but relied on his memory. On later occasions when Roberts has administered an oath, he has taken the text with him.

The Associated Press reported that "[l]ater, as the two men shook hands in the Capitol, Roberts appeared to say the mistake was his fault."^[43] The following evening in the White House Map Room with reporters present, Roberts and Obama repeated the oath correctly. This was, according to the White House, done in "an abundance of caution" to ensure that the constitutional requirement had been met.

Personal life[link]

Roberts is one of thirteen Catholic justices — out of 111 justices total — in the history of the Supreme Court.^[44] Of those thirteen justices, six (Roberts, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Sonia Sotomayor) are currently serving. Roberts married Jane Sullivan in Washington in 1996.^[1] She is an attorney, a Catholic, and a trustee (along with Clarence Thomas) at her alma mater, the College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, Massachusetts. The couple adopted two children, John (Jack) and Josephine (Josie).^[1]

Health[link]

Roberts suffered a seizure on July 30, 2007, while at his vacation home on Hupper Island off the village of Port Clyde in St. George, Maine.^[45][46] As a result of the seizure he fell five to ten feet on a dock near his house but suffered only minor scrapes.^[45] He was taken by private boat to the mainland^[46] (which is several hundred yards from the island) and then by ambulance to Penobscot Bay Medical Center in Rockport, where he stayed overnight, according to Supreme Court spokesperson Kathy Arberg.^[47] Doctors called the incident a benign idiopathic seizure, which means there was no identifiable physiological cause.^{[45][46][48][49]}

Roberts had suffered a similar seizure in 1993.^[45][46][48] After this first seizure, Roberts temporarily limited some of his activities, such as driving. According to Senator Arlen Specter, who chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee during Roberts's nomination to be Chief Justice in 2005, senators were aware of this seizure when they were considering his nomination, but the committee did not think it was significant enough to bring up during his confirmation hearings. Federal judges are not required by law to release information about their health.^[45]

According to neurologist Dr. Marc Schlosberg of Washington Hospital Center, who has no direct connection to the Roberts case, someone who has had more than one seizure without any other cause is by definition determined to have epilepsy. After two seizures, the likelihood of another at some point is greater than 60 percent.^[46] Dr. Steven Garner of New York Methodist Hospital, who is also uninvolved with the case, said that Roberts's previous history of seizures means that the second incident may be less serious than if this were a newly emerging problem.^[48]

The Supreme Court said in a statement Roberts has "fully recovered from the incident," and a neurological evaluation "revealed no cause for concern." Dr. Sanjay Gupta, a CNN contributor and a neurosurgeon not involved in Roberts's case, said when an otherwise healthy person has a seizure, his doctor would investigate whether the patient had started any new medications and had normal electrolyte levels. If those two things were normal, then a brain scan would be performed. If Roberts does not have another seizure within a relatively short time period, Gupta said he was unsure if Roberts would be given the diagnosis of epilepsy. He said the Chief Justice may need to take an anti-seizure medication.^[49]

Personal finances[link]

According to a 16-page financial disclosure form Roberts submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee prior to his Supreme Court confirmation hearings, his net worth was more than $6 million, including $1.6 million in stock holdings. At the time Roberts left private practice to join the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2003, he took a pay cut from $1 million a year to $171,800; as Chief Justice his salary is $217,400. Roberts also holds a one-eighth interest in a cottage in Knocklong, an Irish village in County Limerick. His wife's family descend from Charleville, County Cork, County Kerry, and County Fermanagh in Ireland.

In August 2010, Roberts sold his stock in Pfizer, which allows him to participate in two pending cases involving the pharmaceutical maker. Justices are required to recuse themselves in cases in which they own stock of a party.^[50]

Bibliography of articles by John G. Roberts Jr.[link]

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, Legal Times, February 26, 1990, co-authored with E. Barrett Prettyman, Jr.
• "Article III Limits on Statutory Standing". Duke Law Journal 42: 1219. 1993. 
• Riding the Coattails of the Solicitor General, 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". Journal of Supreme Court History 30 (1): 68–81. 2005. DOI:10.1111/j.1059-4329.2005.00098.x. 
• "What Makes the D.C. Circuit Different? A Historical View" (PDF). Virginia Law Review 92 (3): 375. 2006. http://www.virginialawreview.org/content/pdfs/92/375.pdf. 
• "A Tribute to Chief Justice Rehnquist" (PDF). Harvard Law Review 119: 1. 2005. http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/119/Nov05/Rehnquist_TributeFTX.pdf. 

See also[link]

Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to: John Roberts

• Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States
• List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States
• List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States
• List of United States Chief Justices by time in office
• List of U.S. Supreme Court Justices by time in office
• United States Supreme Court cases during the Roberts Court

Further reading[link]

News articles[link]

• "Roberts Listed in Federalist Society '97-98 Directory". Washington Post. July 25, 2005.^[51]
• "Appellate judge Roberts is Bush high-court pick." MSNBC. July 19, 2005.^[52]
• Argetsinger, Amy, and Jo Becker. "The nominee as a young pragmatist: under Reagan, Roberts tackled tough issues." Washington Post. July 22, 2005.^[53]
• Barbash, Fred, et al.: "Bush to nominate Judge John G. Roberts Jr." Washington Post. July 19, 2005.^[54]
• Becker, Jo, and R. Jeffrey Smith. "Record of accomplishment — and some contradictions." Washington Post. July 20, 2005.^[55]
• Bumuller, Elisabeth, and David Stout: "President chooses conservative judge as nominee to court." New York Times. July 19, 2005.^[56]
• Entous, Adam. "Bush picks conservative Roberts for Supreme Court." Reuters. July 19, 2005.^[57]
• Goodnough, Abby. "Nominee Gave Quiet Advice on Recount" New York Times. July 21, 2005.^[58]
• Lane, Charles. "Federalist affiliation misstated: Roberts does not belong to group." Washington Post. July 21, 2005.^[59]
• Lane, Charles. "Short record as judge is under a microscope." Washington Post. July 21, 2005.^[60]
• Groppe, Maureen, and John Tuohy. "If you ask John where he's from, he says Indiana." Indianapolis Star. July 20, 2005.^[61]
• McFeatters, Ann. "John G. Roberts Jr. is Bush choice for Supreme Court." Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. July 19, 2005.^[62]
• Riechmann, Deb. "Federal judge Roberts is Bush's choice." Associated Press. July 20, 2005.^[63]
• "Roberts: A smart, self-effacing 'Eagle Scout'." Associated Press. July 20, 2005.^[64]
• "Who Is John G. Roberts Jr.?" ABC News. July 19, 2005.^[65]

Government/official biographies[link]

• "President announces Judge John Roberts as Supreme Court nominee." Office of the Press Secretary, Executive Office of the President.^[66]
• "Roberts, John G., Jr." Federal Judicial Center.^[67]
• "John G. Roberts biography." Office of Legal Policy, U.S. Department of Justice.^[68]
• "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.^[69]
• John G. Roberts Questionnaire for Appeals Court Confirmation Hearing (p. 297–339) and responses to Questions from Various Senators (p. 443–461)^[70]

Other[link]

• Coffin, Shannen W. "Meet John Roberts: The President Makes the Best Choice." National Review Online. July 19, 2005.^[71]
• "Former Hogan & Hartson partner nominated for the U.S. Supreme Court." Hogan & Hartson, LLP. July 20, 2005.^[72]
• Goldman, Jerry. "John G. Roberts, Jr." Oyez.^[73]
• "John G. Roberts, Jr. Fact Sheet" La Lumiere School.^[74]
• "John G. Roberts federal campaign contributions." Newsmeat.com. July 19, 2005.^[75]
• "Progress for America: Support for the Confirmation of John G. Roberts"^[76]
• "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.^[77]
• Joel K. Goldstein, "Not Hearing History: A Critique of Chief Justice Roberts's Reinterpretation of Brown," 69 Ohio St. L.J. 791 (2008).^[78]

References[link]

External links[link]

Wikisource has original works written by or about: John Glover Roberts

Wikinews has related news: President Bush nominates John Roberts as Chief Justice of the U.S.

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: John Roberts

• Supreme Court official site with biographies
• Profile at the Biographical Directory of Federal Judges, a public domain publication of the Federal Judicial Center
• Legal resources at the Law Library of Congress
• Biography and writings at the Legal Information Institute
• Profile at the Oyez Project
• Appearances on C-SPAN
• Profile at the Internet Movie Database
• Financial information at OpenSecrets.org
• Collected news and commentary at The New York Times
• Works by or about John Roberts in libraries (WorldCat catalog)
• Profile at Notable Names Database
• Judge Roberts's Published Opinions in a searchable database
• Chief Justice John Roberts at About.com
• List of Circuit Judge Roberts's opinions for the DC Circuit
• 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
• SCOTUSblog
• List of Chief Justices, including John Roberts, Jr.
• On first day, Roberts sets no-nonsense tone — The Boston Globe

Nomination and confirmation

• 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
• Supreme Court Nomination Blog
• Senate Vote on the Roberts nomination
• 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
• Search and browse the transcripts from Judge Roberts's confirmation hearing

v t e Chief Justices of the United States 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 F. Stone Fred M. Vinson Earl Warren Warren E. Burger William Rehnquist John Roberts

Supreme Court of the United States

The Roberts Court Chief Justice: John Glover Roberts, Jr. (2005 to present) 2005–2006: J.P. Stevens S.D. O'Connor A. Scalia A. Kennedy D. Souter C. Thomas R.B. Ginsburg S. Breyer 2006–2009: J.P. Stevens A. Scalia A. Kennedy D. Souter C. Thomas R.B. Ginsburg S. Breyer S. Alito 2009–2010: J.P. Stevens A. Scalia A. Kennedy C. Thomas R.B. Ginsburg S. Breyer S. Alito S. Sotomayor 2010–present: A. Scalia A. Kennedy C. Thomas R.B. Ginsburg S. Breyer S. Alito S. Sotomayor E. Kagan

Altamas Kabir (born 19 July 1948) is a justice of the Supreme Court of India.

Early career[link]

Kabir became an advocate in 1973 and practiced civil and criminal law in Kolkata at the district court and the Calcutta High Court. He became a permanent judge in the Calcutta High Court on August 6, 1990. On 3 January 2005 he became a chief justice of the Jharkhand High Court.

Career as justice[link]

Kabir was appointed as a supreme court justice on 9 September 2005. He is due to retire on 19 July 2013.^[1][2]

References[link]

Chief Justice of India
Emblem of the Supreme Court of India
Incumbent S. H. Kapadia
Residence	New Delhi, India
Appointer	President of India
Inaugural holder	H. J. Kania
Formation	1950
Website	Supreme Court of India

The Chief Justice of India is the highest-ranking judge in the Supreme Court of India, and thus holds the highest judicial position in India. As well as presiding in the Supreme Court, the Chief Justice also head its administrative functions.

The current Chief Justice is S. H. Kapadia, who has held the office since 12th May 2010.

As the chief judge, the Chief Justice is responsible for the allocation of cases and appointment of constitutional benches which deal with important matters of law. In accordance with Article 145 of the Constitution of India and the Supreme Court Rules of Procedure of 1966, the Chief Justice allocates work to the other judges, who are bound to refer the matter back to him or her in case they require the matter to be looked into by a bench of higher strength.

On the administrative side, the Chief Justice carries out the following functions:

• maintenance of the roster;
• appointment of court officials;
• general and miscellaneous matters relating to the supervision and functioning of the Supreme Court.

Appointment of the Chief Justice of India[link]

Article 124 of the Constitution of India provides for the manner of appointing judges to the Supreme Court. However, no specific provision is made as to the appointment of the Chief Justice; as a result, the latter is appointed in the same manner as for the other judges to the Supreme Court.

Generally speaking, Supreme Court and the High Courts as he or she thinks necessary. However, this convention has been breached on a number of occasions, most notably during the premiership of Indira Gandhi, when A.N. Ray was appointed as the Chief Justice despite three judges being more senior than him. It was alleged that Ray was appointed because he was considered to be a supporter of Gandhi's government, during a time when her government was becoming increasingly mired in a political and constitutional crisis.

In the aftermath of the Emergency, the Supreme Court in a series of landmark decisions asserted its position and independence. In one such case the Court declared (in the constitutional bench S.P. Gupta - II case) that the Government of India would be bound to nominate only the most senior judge of the Supreme Court for the position of Chief Justice, thereby removing a potential source for Government influence over the judiciary. Since then, the convention has been followed without exception.

Once appointed, the Chief Justice remains in office until his or her retirement or death, unless removed by impeachment.

Oath of affirmation[link]

I, name, having been appointed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India do swear in the name of God/solemnly affirm that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India as by law established, that I will uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India, that I will duly and faithfully and to the best of my ability, knowledge and judgment perform the duties of my office without fear or favour, affection or ill-will and that I will uphold the Constitution and the laws.

— Constitution of India, Third Schedule, Part IV

List of Chief Justices of India[link]

Other notable judges[link]

Since the appointment to the office of the Chief Justice of India has been by convention on basis of seniority, the procedure has been criticized by various jurists and constitutional experts as being averse to talent and non-recognition leading abilities. On this count, various judges of the Supreme Court are named who showed inspiring leadership ability, but because of the seniority rule could not become the Chief Justice of India. Some of these names have been:

• Justice K. K. Mathew for his impeccable legal scholarship and various decisive judgements
• Justice H.R. Khanna who delivered the landmark dissent in Habeas Corpus case.
• Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer known for his human right approach and literary merit in decision-making.
• Justice R.S. Sarkaria known for his immaculate understanding of Administrative law et cetera.
• Justice O.P. Chinnappa Reddy for his landmark decisions on constitutional law.

See also[link]

• Supreme Court of India
• Constitution of India
• Indian Law

External links[link]

• Official website of Supreme Court of India
• Photo Gallery of Former Chief Justices of India

Renato Corona
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
In office May 17, 2010 – May 29, 2012
Appointed by	Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo
Preceded by	Reynato Puno
Succeeded by	Antonio Carpio (Acting)
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court
In office April 9, 2002 – May 17, 2010
Appointed by	Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo
Preceded by	Arturo Buena
Succeeded by	Maria Lourdes Sereno
Chief of Staff of Malacañang Palace
In office January 20, 2001 – April 9, 2002
President	Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo
Preceded by	Aprodicio Laquian
Succeeded by	Rigoberto Tiglao
Personal details
Born	(1948-10-15) October 15, 1948 (age 63) Tanauan, Philippines
Spouse(s)	Cristina Roco
Alma mater	Ateneo de Manila University Harvard University University of Santo Tomas

Renato C. Corona (born October 15, 1948) was the 23rd Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Philippines. He served as an Associate Justice after being appointed by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo on April 9, 2002 and later as Chief Justice on May 12, 2010 upon the retirement of Chief Justice Reynato Puno.

Corona was a former law professor, private law practitioner, and member of the Cabinet under two Presidents, Fidel V. Ramos and Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, before being appointed to the high tribunal.

On December 12, 2011, he was impeached by the House of Representatives.^[1] On May 29, 2012, he was found guilty by the Senate of violating Article II of the Articles of Impeachment alleging that he failed to disclose to the public his statement of assets, liabilities, and net worth.^[2]

Background[link]

Renato Corona was born on October 15, 1948 in Tanauan, Batangas, Philippines. He is married to Cristina Corona (née Roco). They have three children and six grandchildren.^[3]

Education[link]

Corona graduated with gold medal honors from the Ateneo de Manila grade school in 1962 and high school in 1966.

He earned his Bachelor of Arts degree, with honors, also from Ateneo de Manila in 1970 where he was the editor-in-chief of The GUIDON, the university student newspaper. He finished his Bachelor of Laws at the Ateneo Law School in 1974. He placed 25th highest out of 1,965 candidates in the bar examinations with a grade of 84.6%. After pursuing law school, he obtained his Master of Business Administration degree at the Ateneo Professional Schools.^[3]

In 1981, he was accepted to the Master of Laws program of the Harvard Law School where he focused on foreign investment policies and the regulation of corporate and financial institutions. He was conferred the degree LL.M. in 1982. He earned his Doctor of Civil Law degree from the University of Santo Tomas, summa cum laude and was the class valedictorian.^[3]

Doctorate degree controversy[link]

On December 22, 2011, Marites Vitug of online journalism site, Rappler.com, published an article alleging that the University of Santo Tomas (UST) "may have broken its rules" in granting Corona a doctorate in civil law and qualifying him for honors. She wrote that Corona did not submit a dissertation to complete his PhD, a requirement set by the university for all wishing to have their doctorate degrees, and that Corona overstayed, since UST requires that PhD programs be completed in five years with maximum residency of seven years.^[4]

Basing from a previous interview, Vitug said Corona started his coursework on his PhD in 2000 or 2001. Corona graduated in April 2011, a decade later, where he was one of six graduates to garner top honors during ceremonies intended to commemorate the university's quadricentennial. ^[5]

In a statement, the UST Graduate School denied that it broke its rules to favor Corona. It added that Corona had enrolled in all of the requisite subjects leading to the doctorate, attended his classes, passed them and delivered a “scholarly treatise” for his dissertation in a public lecture. UST said that since it has been declared by the Commission on Higher Education as an “autonomous higher educational institution (HEI)” it thus enjoys an institutional academic freedom to set its standards of quality and excellence and determine to whom it shall confer appropriate degrees. It added that issues about Corona's residency and academic honor received were moot because these come under the institutional academic freedom of the university.^[6] UST likewise questioned the objectivity of the article citing that Vitug has had a run-in with Corona and the Supreme Court.^[7]

Sought for comment, Vitug said UST's statement "basically says, we have rules but we can flout them, invoking academic freedom and autonomy."^[8]

The book, Shadow of Doubt: Probing the Supreme Court, also written by Vitug, found that his claim that he graduated with honors from his Bachelor of Arts degree at the Ateneo de Manila University is not recorded in the university's archives.^[5]

As Chief Justice[link]

Chambers of Renato C. Corona, (new Supreme Court of the Philippines building).

On May 12, 2010, two days after the 2010 general election and a month before President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo's term expired, Corona was appointed the 23rd Chief Justice of the Philippines, succeeding Reynato Puno who had reached the mandatory age of retirement.^[9]

His appointment was highly criticized, notably by then presidential candidate Benigno Aquino III and former President Fidel V. Ramos, due to a constitutional prohibition against Arroyo from making appointments two months before the election up to the end of her term.^[9]

However, an earlier Supreme Court decision in De Castro v. Judicial and Bar Council on March 17, 2010 upheld Arroyo’s right as incumbent president to appoint the Chief Justice. Voting 9–1, the high tribunal underscored that the 90-day period for the President to fill the vacancy in the Supreme Court is a special provision to establish a definite mandate for the President as the appointing power and that the election ban on appointments does not extend to the Supreme Court.^[10]

Corona abstained from ruling on the case together with Chief Justice Puno and Associate Justice Antonio Carpio while Associate Justices Antonio Eduardo Nachura and Presbitero Velasco, Jr. dismissed the petition as immature. Associate Justice Conchita Carpio-Morales, in her dissenting opinion, stressed that the Court can function effectively during the midnight appointments ban without an appointed Chief Justice.^[11][12]

Impeachment[link]

On December 12, 2011, 188 of the 285 members of the House of Representatives signed an impeachment complaint against Corona.^[1] As only a vote of one-third of the entire membership of the House, or 95 signatures, were necessary for the impeachment of Corona under the 1987 Constitution, the complaint was sent to the Senate for trial.^[13][14]

Corona is accused of consistently ruling with partiality to former President Arroyo in cases involving her administration and of failing to disclose his statement of assets as required by the Constitution. However he argues that he was not required to disclose US$2.4 million under a rule that stated foreign currency deposits did not have to be reported and that the peso accounts belonged to relatives, while also saying the case against him was politically motivated as part of President Benigno Aquino III's campaign against corruption.^[15]

On May 29, 2012, he was found guilty by the Senate of Article II of the Articles of Impeachment filed against him for his failure to disclose to the public his statement of assets, liabilities, and net worth.^[2] Twenty out of twenty-three senators voted to convict him. A two-thirds majority, or 16 votes, was necessary to convict and remove Corona from office. Corona responded by declaring that "ugly politics prevailed" and his "conscience is clear." This marked the first time that a high-level Philippine official has been impeached and convicted. Senator Pia Cayetano explained her vote by stating that "the failure to declare $2.4 million and some 80 million pesos is not minor."^[16][17]

References[link]