Chief Justice John Roberts has always been “a man more sinned against than sinning.” That line from Shakespeare’s King Lear seems increasingly apt for the head of our highest court.
Roberts was installed almost exactly 20 years ago and soon found himself grappling with a series of controversies that have rocked the court as an institution.
He is now faced with another monumental scandal, after the New York Times published leaked confidential information that could only have come from one of the nine members of the Court.
By most accounts, Roberts is popular with his colleagues and someone with an unquestioning institutional knowledge and loyalty. He is, in many respects, the ideal Chief Justice: engaging, empathetic, and unfailingly respectful of the court’s justices and staff.
Roberts has been chief justice during some of the court’s most contentious times. Major decisions like overturning Roe v. Wade (which Roberts sought to avoid) have galvanized many against the court.
According to recent polling, fewer than half of Americans (47 percent) hold a favorable opinion of the court (51 percent have an unfavorable view). Of course, that level of support should inspire envy in the court’s critics in the Congress (18 percent approval) and the media (which only 32 percent trust).
Some, however, want to express their dissatisfaction more directly and even permanently. This week, an Alaskan man, Panos Anastasiou, 76, was indicted with 22 federal charges for threatening to torture and kill the six conservative justices.
Another man, Nicolas Roske, 28, will go on trial next June for attempting to assassinate Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
In the meantime, law professors have rallied the mob, calling for them to be more aggressive against the conservative justices and even calling for Congress to cut off their air conditioning to make them retire.
Politicians have also fueled the rage against the court. On one infamous occasion, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer declared in front of the Supreme Court, “I want to tell you, [Neil] Gorsuch, I want to tell you, [Brett] Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price.”
Yet, it is what has occurred inside the court that should be most troubling for Roberts. On May 2, 2022, someone inside the court leaked to Politico a copy of the draft of the opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization overturning Roe v. Wade.
It was one of the greatest breaches of ethics in the court’s history. The subsequent investigation failed to produce any charges for the culprit or culprits.
Now, the New York Times has published highly detailed accounts of the internal deliberations of the court. The account seemed largely directed at the conservative justices and Roberts.
Some of the information on deliberations in three cases (Trump v. Anderson, Fischer v. United States, and Trump v. United States) had to come either directly or indirectly from a justice. Some of these deliberations were confined to members of the court.
Seeing a pattern in this and past leaks, one law professor, Josh Blackmun, even went so far to declare that it is “likely that [Justice Elena] Kagan, or at least Kagan surrogates, are behind these leaks.”
That remains pure speculation. Yet after the earlier Dobbs leak, Roberts is now dealing with leaks coming out of the confidential conference sessions and memoranda of the justices. This occurs after Roberts pledged that security protocols had been strengthened to protect confidentiality.
The disclosure of this information to third parties violates Canon 4(D)(5) of judicial ethics: “A judge should not disclose or use nonpublic information acquired in a judicial capacity for any purpose unrelated to the judge’s official duties.”
Roberts and the court have long maintained that judicial ethics rules that apply to other federal judges are merely advisory for them.
However, some in Congress are now pushing for new binding ethics rules that could make fundamental changes to the court. Justice Kagan is supporting the ethical changes, which would allow lower court judges to render judgment on the justices. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson also declared publicly that she does not “have any problem” with an enforceable ethics code for the Supreme Court.
A truley “enforceable” code would presumably allow the lower court judges appointed by the chief justice to compel the removal of a justice from a given case. That could flip the outcome on a closely divided court.
Given the latest leak, what would such a panel do with a justice who has breached the confidentiality of internal judicial deliberations? Under the Constitution, a justice can only be removed by Congress through impeachment. Impeachment of a justice has only happened once, in 1805, when Associate Justice Samuel Chase was acquitted.
Roberts has the demeanor and decency of a great chief justice. Many may now wonder if he has the drive and determination to confront his colleagues on a worsening situation at the court. Many years ago, I believed that Roberts erred in failing to publicly rebuke Justice Samuel Alito for publicly displaying disagreement with President Barack Obama during a State of the Union address. Although I was sympathetic with Alito’s objections to Obama’s misleading statements about the Citizens United ruling, it was still a breach of judicial decorum, in my view.
Roberts is a good chief in bad times. He can hardly be blamed for the abandonment of the most fundamental ethical principles by justices or clerks. Yet, the court is now in an undeniable crisis of faith. For decades, that faith and fealty in the institution has maintained confidentiality and civility. It is now, again, shattered by the reckless and self-serving conduct of those entrusted with the court’s business.
For a man who truly reveres the Court, it is an almost Lear-like betrayal that led to that king wandering blind in his former lands. It is time for an institutional reckoning for Roberts in calling his colleagues to account.
The Supreme Court has long been largely immune from the weaponized leaks so characteristic of Washington. In a city that floats on leaks, the court was an island of integrity. And more has been lost at the court than just confidentiality. There is a loss of confidence, even innocence, at an institution that once aspired to be something more than a source for the New York Times.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage” (Simon & Schuster).
