John Roberts

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."http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_senate_hearings&docid=f:92548.wais

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

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."http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050801&s=sunstein080105.

Related Topics:
Cass Sunstein - University of Chicago - Judicial minimalist - Originalism

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

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.

Related Topics:
Hedgepeth v. Washington Metro Authority - Zero tolerance - Washington D.C. metro - French fry - Fourth - Fifth Amendments

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

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."

Related Topics:
Rational basis - Age discrimination - Potter Stewart - Griswold v. Connecticut

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

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 http://www.yementimes.com/article.shtml?i=712&p=local&a=5, could be tried by a military court because

Related Topics:
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld - Military tribunals - Terrorism - Enemy combatants - A. Raymond Randolph - Hamdan - Al-Qaeda - Osama bin Laden

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

• the military commission had the approval of Congress;
• 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;
• 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.http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200507/04-5393a.pdf

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

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 Californian 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."

Related Topics:
Endangered Species Act - En banc - United States v. Lopez - United States v. Morrison - Interstate commerce - California

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~