Chief Justice John Roberts offered pointed remarks to those unhappy with the Supreme Court’s recent rulings, suggesting critics may be overlooking an important truth: judges aren’t to blame for outcomes rooted in a faithful reading of the law.
“It would be good if people appreciated it’s not the judges’ fault that a correct interpretation of the law meant that, no, you don’t get to do this,” Roberts said Friday at a judicial conference, just one day after the Court released several of its most controversial decisions of the term.
In a conversation with the chief judge of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Roberts did not address specific rulings—such as the Supreme Court’s decision favoring former President Donald Trump—but he did speak broadly about public backlash.
Asked how he handles criticism, Roberts responded with characteristic calm: “Every case has a winner and a loser. And the loser isn’t going to like the outcome.”
“You’d like it to be informed criticism,” he continued, “but it’s usually not. People tend to focus on the bottom line—who won, who lost—rather than how the Court reached its decision.”
Tensions Among the Justices
While much criticism comes from outside the Court, Roberts acknowledged that sometimes the sharpest words come from within.
In a recent ruling curbing the power of federal judges to block executive orders nationwide, Justice Amy Coney Barrett—writing for the conservative majority—took aim at Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s dissent. Barrett accused Jackson of ignoring centuries of precedent and misreading the Constitution.
“We will not dwell on Justice Jackson’s argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself,” Barrett wrote. “Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.”
Jackson, for her part, warned the decision gave future presidents dangerous leeway. “The Judiciary… has put both our legal system, and our system of government, in grave jeopardy,” she wrote.
A Court Divided, But Still Collaborative
Roberts acknowledged the strong disagreements, especially during the intense final days of the Court’s term.
“Yes, there are sharp divisions and sharp adjectives,” he said, “but everyone works very hard to understand where their colleagues are coming from.”
Understanding those differing views, he added, helps justices refine their own arguments: “It’s important to know what Justice So-and-So is thinking, because that helps you better understand your own perspective.”
He also noted the Court had waited until the final stretch of the term to release many major decisions—something he said they’ll try to improve. “Things were a little crunched toward the end this year,” he admitted with a smile.
Despite the friction, Roberts’ comments reflect his ongoing desire to defend the Court’s legitimacy without becoming its public face. As he’s often said, it’s not about who wins—it’s about whether the law was followed.
