Opinion | How John Roberts Lost His Court

As the head of the judicial branch, the title is Chief Justice of the United States, not Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. A Chief Justice holds many responsibilities, with over 80 specified by federal statutes that grant broad authority. However, within the “conference,” the term for the nine justices collectively, real authority is not dictated by statutes but by leadership qualities. Each member of the court, confirmed to a life-tenured position, owes nothing to any other member. The only significant constraint on the justices’ behavior towards each other is horizontal, not vertical. Justices understand that they can achieve little unless there are four others willing to collaborate.

Respect for a Chief Justice based solely on their office only goes so far; genuine respect must be earned. Chief Justice Warren Burger, who served from 1969 to 1986, did not seem to earn the respect of his colleagues, who viewed him as pompous and manipulative. His successor, William Rehnquist, on the other hand, was valued by his colleagues as a straight shooter who spoke his mind. As Chief Justice, he was willing to compromise to speak for a unified court, even as the court became more conservative with new Republican-appointed justices.

Chief Justice Rehnquist was known for defending the court’s standing and prerogatives, advocating for judicial independence. In the face of criticism against the court, he would likely have found a way to advise Justices Alito and Thomas on recusal from the Trump immunity case. Chief Justice John Roberts, who clerked for Justice Rehnquist, is known for maintaining control over his public image. However, some spontaneity may be necessary in addressing the current issues surrounding the court.