In a move that surprises absolutely no one, Chief Justice John Roberts has once again donned his academic robes to deliver a stern lecture on the sanctity of judicial independence. In his latest year-end report, Roberts warns of looming threats to our hallowed judiciary, citing everything from ‘intimidation’ and ‘disinformation’ to the audacious possibility of public officials daring to defy court orders.
Roberts, ever the historian, opens his missive with a tale of King George III stripping colonial judges of their lifetime appointments—a move that was, in his words, ‘not well received.’ One can almost hear the collective gasp from the legal scholars’ gallery. The Chief Justice’s message is clear: questioning the judiciary is tantamount to tyranny.
But let’s pause for a moment. Is the judiciary truly under siege, or is this a preemptive strike against a changing political tide? With President-elect Donald Trump poised to take office, bringing with him a mandate for conservative reform, one might wonder if Roberts’s alarm bells are ringing a bit prematurely. After all, this is the same Chief Justice who, in 2018, felt compelled to remind us that there are no ‘Obama judges or Trump judges,’ just impartial arbiters of the law.
Yet, here we are, with Roberts decrying the ‘specter of open disregard for federal court rulings’ and lamenting the rise of ‘dangerous reactions’ prompted by public criticism of judges.
He points to the landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision as an example of the judiciary’s role in upholding the rule of law, conveniently sidestepping the decades of resistance that followed that ruling—a resistance that was, in many cases, a direct challenge to judicial overreach.
Roberts also takes aim at the modern scourge of ‘disinformation,’ amplified, of course, by social media and those pesky ‘hostile foreign state actors.’
It’s a familiar refrain: blame the internet and shadowy foreign entities for eroding public trust in our institutions. Never mind that the judiciary’s own actions—opaque decision-making, perceived partisanship, and ethical controversies—might play a significant role in shaping public perception.
And let’s not overlook the timing of this report. With Trump’s inauguration on the horizon, Roberts’s emphasis on the need for other branches of government to respect and enforce judicial decisions reads less like a neutral observation and more like a veiled admonition.
It’s as if the Chief Justice is preemptively wagging his finger at the incoming administration, cautioning against any attempts to challenge the judiciary’s authority.
But here’s the rub: in a republic that values checks and balances, no branch of government should be beyond scrutiny. The judiciary is not a sacred priesthood, immune from criticism or accountability. When judges venture beyond interpreting the law and start making it—effectively legislating from the bench—they invite the very skepticism and resistance that Roberts now bemoans.
So, while the Chief Justice’s call for judicial independence is wrapped in the noble language of upholding the rule of law, one can’t help but detect a note of self-interest. After all, an unchecked judiciary is free to continue its reign without interference from those pesky elected officials who, inconveniently, represent the will of the people.
In the end, Roberts’s report serves as a reminder—not of the judiciary’s vulnerability, but of its entrenched power and its determination to maintain that power in the face of a shifting political landscape. As the Trump era dawns, one can only hope that the other branches of government will exercise their constitutional prerogatives to check judicial overreach, ensuring that no single branch becomes the ultimate arbiter of our republic’s destiny.
