In June 2015, Roberts ruled on two landmark legislative cases. Roberts, in a 6-3 decision, sided with the liberal wing of the court and its Justice Kennedy, and reaffirmed the legality of Obamacare by supporting the law`s subsidy programs in King v. Burwell. However, Roberts stuck to his conservative views on the issue of same-sex marriage and voted against the court`s decision that legalized same-sex marriage in all 50 states. Roberts and his wife, Jane Sullivan, were married on July 27, 1996. [132] Sullivan is a lawyer who became a leading legal recruiter at the law firms Major, Lindsey & Africa and Mlegal. [133] Along with Clarence Thomas, she is a member of the board of governors of her alma mater, the College of Holy Cross. The couple lives in Chevy Chase, Maryland, an affluent suburb of Washington, D.C., and they have two adopted children: John «Jack» and Josephine «Josie.» [134] [16] From the 5-4 court decision to legalize same-sex marriage, Roberts was bold in his protest, saying it undermined the country`s democratic process. «If you are one of the many Americans — regardless of sexual orientation — who advocate extending same-sex marriage, certainly celebrate today`s decision,» he wrote in his 29-page dissent, published on the day of the historic June 26, 2015 announcement. «Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the occasion of a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits.
But don`t celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it. Roberts was appointed to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, also known as the DC Circuit, in 2001. However, tensions between the Bush administration and the Democratic-controlled Senate prevented Roberts from being confirmed until 2003. As a Circuit Court judge, Roberts ruled on a number of important cases, including Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, concerning the legality of military tribunals. The Court ruled that these tribunals are lawful because they are sanctioned by the United States Congress and because the Third Geneva Convention – which describes the protection of prisoners of war – does not apply to American courts. Roberts` decision on individual mandate was criticized by conservative activists as a betrayal. These complaints were compounded by reports that Roberts changed his mind after initially telling colleagues that he thought the mandate was unconstitutional and that he had negotiated with Breyer and Kagan to get their votes on Medicaid expansion in exchange for his vote on the mandate. But from a legal perspective, Roberts` decision was complicated and could not simply be called «liberal.» While Roberts welcomed the ACA critics` argument that the warrant exceeded congressional authority under the trade clause (a view that was outside the primary purview of the commercial clause at the time), he ultimately upheld the warrant on the grounds that it was not understood as a punishment (which Congress could only impose under the trade clause). but as a tax.
which would fall directly within the powers of Congress under the tax and expenditure clause (Article I, Section 8). Roberts` decision was seen by the Conservatives as a rescue from expensive and unconstitutional Liberal legislation, and by the Liberals as a Conservative-inspired imposition of new Conservative-inspired restrictions on the national government. Others, however, praised the choice of what they saw as their division of difference. Roberts played an important role in the history of the Supreme Court and often served as a key vote in split decisions. In 2012, he sided with the liberal side of the court when he voted to uphold key provisions of the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) as part of the National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius decision. However, he sided with the Conservative minority in Obergefell v. Hodges, who legalized same-sex marriage across the United States. Roberts regularly joined fellow Republican-appointed justices in high-profile and high-profile cases. The Roberts Court welcomed legal interpretations that have pushed U.S. constitutional law in conservative directions regarding abortion, affirmative action, campaign finance, federalism, gun rights, and religious freedom. He joined the conservative majorities 5-4 in Gonzales v.
Carhart (2007), upholding federal law prohibiting partial abortion; Ledbetter v Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (2007), the application of a limitation period to a complaint of discrimination on the basis of sex, even if the complainant did not become aware of the discrimination until afterwards; Morse v. Frederick (2007), who notes (in an opinion written by Roberts himself) that public schools can prohibit students from posting certain messages without violating students` rights under the First Amendment; District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), which decides that the Second Amendment protects the individual right to own firearms and restricts gun control regulations that can be passed by federal or state governments; Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010), which concluded that the First Amendment`s free speech clause prevents Congress from limiting corporate and union spending on «election advertising» (political advertising); City Greece v. Galloway (2014), which states that legislators may open their sessions with public prayers without violating the First Amendment`s religion-making clause («Congress shall not pass a law that respects a religious institution»); Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores (2014), which held that profit-making, restricted companies have the right to refuse to pay for coverage of certain contraceptives otherwise legally required in their employees` health insurance policies on religious grounds; Glossip v. Gross (2015), which maintains a state`s use of a particular drug in executions that would cause severe pain; Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31 (2018), which found that a state law requiring all public sector employees to pay dues to a public sector union violated the First Amendment`s protection of free speech; and Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue (2020), which held (in another statement by Roberts) that the application of a state constitutional provision prohibiting state aid to religious schools to a program that provides student assistance to parents who send their children to private schools violates the First Amendment clause («Congress shall not legislate.
Prohibition of the free exercise of religion»). In 1982, Roberts served as an advisor to U.S. Attorney General William Français Smith and later an advisor to White House Counsel Fred Fielding under President Ronald Reagan. During these years, Roberts gained a reputation as a political pragmatist, tackling some of the administration`s toughest problems (such as school buses) and working with lawyers and members of Congress. After losing the legislative battle over the ACA, an informal group of conservative, libertarian and Republican activists, organizations, and government officials turned to the courts, arguing that the ACA exceeded the powers of the federal government under the U.S. Constitution. Ultimately, this lawsuit reached the Supreme Court via the National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012). This case called into question two elements of the ACA: its «individual mandate,» which required individuals to provide proof of health insurance or pay an additional amount on their income taxes, and its «Medicaid expansion,» which required states to expand eligibility criteria for citizens to receive Medicaid coverage or lose all federal Medicaid subsidies.
Supreme Court experts predicted a sharply divided vote: the four justices appointed by Democratic presidents were widely expected to uphold the ACA, and three Republican-appointed justices (Scalia, Thomas, and Alito) were widely believed to consider the ACA unconstitutional. Roberts and Kennedy were considered the decisive voices. The start of the Donald Trump administration in 2017 brought new legal challenges, with the court agreeing to hear a case involving the president`s attempt to restrict the entry of citizens of several Muslim-majority countries into the United States. Writing the June 2018 majority opinion in Trump v. Hawaii, which ruled in favor of the government, Roberts noted that the president had «sufficient justification for national security» and emphasized his «broad discretion to suspend the entry of foreigners into the United States.» But Roberts didn`t always agree with other conservative justices. In 2020, he surprised observers of the Court by joining two apparently liberal majority opinions. In Bostock v. Clayton County (2020), Roberts and the four liberal justices echoed an unexpected opinion of conservative Neil Gorsuch, who noted that employers cannot fire workers because they are gay or transgender without violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (1964), which prohibits discrimination «on the basis of sex.» And in Department of Homeland Security v.