It hasn’t been an easy term for Chief Justice John Roberts.
He lost a dear friend on the Court with the sudden death of Justice Antonin Scalia in February. Then, with little time to spare, he led the court as it organized a “lying in repose” for thousands of mourners.
At one point the lines extended around the block. On an administrative level, Roberts had to untangle the cases that Scalia had been assigned, as well as those where he might have been writing a separate concurrence or dissent.
On top of that, he became a punching bag for Republicans on the presidential trail who criticized him for his vote on Obamacare. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley even took to the floor of the Senate to criticize Roberts.
“He would be well served to address the reality, not the perception, that too often there is little difference between the actions of the court and the actions of the political branches,” Grassley said. “So, physician, heal thyself.”
Court watchers who analyze the tea leaves during the course of the term believe Roberts might have lost a couple of majority opinions when Scalia died, because of the shift in the vote. The turn to the right many expected, with cases on affirmative action, abortion, and public sector unions, for instance, never happened.
Its worth noting that the challenges of a short-handed court will likely continue into next term if there is no vote for Garland.
“While the impact of Justice Scalia’s death has loomed large over the Court and the Chief this term, it could be an even bigger deal next term, as seen in how far behind the justices are in filling their docket,” said Steve Vladeck, CNN contributor and professor of law at American University Washington College of Law. “Without more confidence that he’ll soon have a full bench, the chief justice may have a lot to do with the paucity of granted cases thus far.”
Earlier in the term when the Court ruled in favor of victims of terrorism and their families in a 6-2 split, clearing the way for them to collect nearly $2 billion from the central bank of Iran, Roberts was in dissent, joined only by Justice Sonia Sotomayor. At issue was a law passed by Congress that was aimed specifically at securing restitution in the case at hand.
Roberts said Congress had interfered with the role of the judiciary in passing the law while the case was pending in the courts.
He said the law “violates the bedrock rule” that the “judicial power is vested in the judicial branch alone.”
Roberts penned the last case of the term when the eight justices voted unanimously in favor of former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, a vote Scalia would have most likely endorsed. That might have been the most consequential opinion the chief justice wrote for the term limiting the activities that can be considered corrupt under federal law.
“Setting up a meeting, talking to another official, or organizing an event (or agreeing to do so) — without more — ” Roberts wrote, does not fit into the definition of an official act. The case will make it harder for prosecutors and was closely watched by politicians and those who seek their favor.
Roberts has stressed one thing in recent years: He cares about the institution of the Court, and wants to make sure that the acrimony between the public branches does not bleed over to his branch of government.
Here’s how he put it in 2014 in a talk at the University of Nebraska:
“They are not getting along very well these days among themselves. It’s a period of real partisan rancor,” he said. “I don’t want it to spill over and affect us.”
The court got its job done this term with little rancor. For the most part, it agreed to disagree agreeably as it gaveled out another term. That alone might have been a victory for the chief.