It’s easy to hear Chief Justice John Roberts lament the limitations of his role. He’s often quoted as saying he can’t fire colleagues who disagree, can’t cut their pay, and must resort to explaining his views “eight different ways.” It paints a picture of a chief justice with limited clout, navigating a court of eight strong-willed individuals. But dig a little deeper, and you’ll find that Roberts possesses several powerful levers, the most significant being the authority to assign who writes the court’s opinions.
Think about it: a Supreme Court decision isn't just a verdict; it's a carefully crafted argument that sets precedent, shapes future legal thinking, and can even influence the tone and rhetoric of lower courts. When the Chief Justice is part of the majority – and this term, he was more often than not – he gets to choose the justice who will articulate that crucial rationale. This isn't just about assigning homework; it's about shaping the law itself.
Roberts, now in his 20th session on the bench, has a history of keeping the most significant cases for himself, particularly those touching on presidential powers. But his use of this assignment power is often more nuanced, a strategic tool to influence and, at times, reward his colleagues. He’s been known to assign opinions in ways that challenge ideological assumptions about certain justices, or to foster a particular outcome.
Take, for instance, a recent, rather intriguing surprise. As the court wrapped up its term, Roberts revealed that Justice Amy Coney Barrett would author the opinion in a highly anticipated case. This was the very case that could potentially release President Trump from numerous lower-court orders blocking his policies, including a contentious effort to alter birthright citizenship. The assignment was a significant one, especially for a justice on the court’s right wing who had faced criticism from some corners for not being sufficiently aligned with the administration, despite her conservative record.
The courtroom buzzed with quiet surprise. Lawyers who had been following the case closely, and even Justice Department officials, exchanged glances. The prevailing assumption was that Roberts, given the case's high profile and its connection to the executive branch, would either write it himself or assign it to a more senior justice. Roberts’ choice, however, immediately seemed to defuse potential criticism, with the President himself praising Barrett’s “brilliantly written” opinion.
Beyond the immediate impact, this strategic assignment also served to solidify Roberts’ relationship with a justice he likely sees as pivotal. For those on the left, who have sought to draw Barrett toward the center, this move underscored her independent standing and Roberts’ ability to leverage that.
Of course, Roberts, like every other justice, has only one vote. But his role as Chief Justice gives him a unique vantage point. He presides over oral arguments, leads the closed-door conferences where cases are discussed and voted upon, and, crucially, wields the opinion assignment power. When he’s in the majority – which, as noted, was frequently this past session, determining the author for 54 out of 56 signed opinions – he’s not just a participant; he’s a conductor.
This is, in many ways, the “Roberts Court,” not just by title but by the tangible influence he exerts. While he’s not immune to finding himself in dissent – notable exceptions include the landmark same-sex marriage ruling and the decision overturning federal abortion rights – his ability to shape the court’s output through opinion assignments is undeniable. It’s a subtle, yet potent, form of power, wielded with a keen understanding of its strategic implications.
