John Roberts in Supreme Court 2020s

On Energy & Oil: EPA cannot regulate greenhouse gases as air pollutants

In his dissent in the 2007 landmark case Massachusetts v. EPA -- in which the majority held that states could sue EPA for climate harms and that the agency could regulate greenhouse gases as air pollutants under the Clean Air Act -- Roberts said he would have dismissed the challengers' claims. "Such a conclusion involves no judgment on whether global warming exists, what causes it, or the extent of the problem," Roberts wrote. "Nor does it render petitioners without recourse. This Court's standing jurisprudence simply recognizes that redress of grievances of the sort at issue here 'is the function of Congress and the Chief Executive,' not the federal courts." Source: GreenWire E&E News on 2021 EPA & climate SCOTUS cases Nov 3, 2021

On Government Reform: AZ mail-in restrictions don't violate Voting Rights Act

Arizona voting restrictions challenged as violations of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. First, voters casting their votes on Election Day outside their precinct are not counted. Second, mail-in ballots cannot be collected by anyone other than an election official, a mail carrier, or a voter's family or household member. The court held, 6-3, that these restrictions did not violate the Act nor were they racially discriminatory.

Dissenters argued that the Court's narrow reading weakened the law and disregarded its intent to address disparities in how election laws affect different racial groups. The rule discarding "out of precinct votes" impacted black and Hispanic voters, with Arizona leading the country in discarding such votes. Restrictions on vote collection makes voting more difficult for Native Americans.

Samuel Alito wrote the opinion of the Court. John Roberts, Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett concurred.

Source: NPR commentary on 2021 SCOTUS rulings Jul 1, 2021

On Education: Schools are limited in regulating student off-campus speech

Summary by OnTheIssues: When then-14-year-old Brandi Levi did not make her school's varsity cheerleading squad, she posted on Snapchat "F--k school f--k softball f--k cheer f--k everything." As a result, she was suspended from the junior varsity squad for a year.

Majority opinion: The Court ruled 8-1 that though there might be circumstances in which off-campus speech might fall under the purview of the school, this did not qualify. It did not involve bullying or threatening behavior, nor did it cause any disruptions at the school. Written by Breyer; joined by Roberts, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, & Barrett.

Concurring opinion: Alito, joined by Gorsuch, focused on when a school is acting in loco parentis, agreeing that was not the case here.

Dissenting opinion: Thomas argued that, historically, a school can regulate off-campus speech if it has a tendency to harm the school, faculty, students, or programs.

Source: 2020 SCOTUS rulings: Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. Jun 23, 2021

On Health Care: Individual mandate is constitutional even with $0 tax

The Court's decision in California v. Texas concludes that the plaintiffs trying to undo ObamaCare had no business being in court. The case was brought by Texas officials who object to ObamaCare, centered on the law's individual mandate [which] required most Americans to either obtain health insurance or pay higher taxes. In 2017, Congress amended ObamaCare to zero out this tax. The Texas plaintiffs claimed that this zeroed-out tax is unconstitutional and also claimed that the entire law must be declared invalid if the zero dollar tax is stuck down.

In a 7-2 ruling, the Court ruled that no one is allowed to bring suit to challenge a provision of law that does nothing: "The IRS can no longer seek a penalty; there is no possible Government action that is causally connected to the plaintiffs' injury."

SCOTUS outcome:Authored by Breyer; joined by Roberts; Thomas; Sotomayor; Kagan; Kavanaugh; and Barrett. Thomas also wrote a concurring opinion. Alito and Gorsuch dissented.

Source: Reuters on 2021 SCOTUS ruling:ÿ"California v. Texas" Jun 17, 2021

On Immigration: DACA protect childhood immigrants from deportation

The Supreme Court blocked the Trump administration's attempt to end Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, an Obama-era program that protects immigrants brought to the US as children from deportation. After Trump came into office, the administration announced the program had been created "without proper authority" and that DACA would be phased out.

Federal courts said the administration had acted arbitrarily when phasing out the program. The courts pointed to the administration's thin justification--reasoning Roberts and the Supreme Court eventually agreed with.

The 5-4 ruling was written by Chief Justice Roberts, who wrote in the majority opinion. "'The wisdom of those decisions 'is none of our concern.' We address only whether the agency complied with the procedural requirement that it provide a reasoned explanation for its action." >The ruling emphasizes that the administration failed to provide an adequate reason to justify ending the DACA program.

Source: CNN on 2020 Scotus ruling on DACA Jun 18, 2020

The above quotations are from Supreme Court decisions 2020 to date. Click here for other excerpts from Supreme Court decisions 2020 to date. Click here for other excerpts by John Roberts. Click here for a profile of John Roberts.
Please consider a donation to OnTheIssues.org! Click for details -- or send donations to: 1770 Mass Ave. #630, Cambridge MA 02140 E-mail: submit@OnTheIssues.org (We rely on your support!)

Page last updated: Mar 21, 2022