John Roberts

Nonpartisan

Supreme Court of the United States

Tenure

2005 - Present

Years in position

20

Predecessor:William Rehnquist (Nonpartisan)

Prior offices:

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

Years in office: 2003 - 2005

Predecessor:James Buckley (Nonpartisan)

Education

Bachelor's

Harvard University, 1976

Law

Harvard Law, 1979

Personal

Birthplace

Buffalo, NY

John Glover Roberts, Jr. is thechief justice of theSupreme Court of the United States. He was first nominated to theSupreme Court of the United States by PresidentGeorge W. Bush (R) on July 19, 2005, to succeedSandra Day O'Connor as anassociate justice, following her assumption ofsenior status on January 31, 2006. President Bush withdrew Roberts' nomination following the death of Chief JusticeWilliam Rehnquist on September 3, 2005, in order to renominate Roberts as the 17thChief Justice of theSupreme Court. The full U.S. Senate confirmed Roberts by a vote of 78-22, on September 29, 2005.^[1] At the time of his nomination, Roberts was the youngest person to serve as chief justice in a century.^[2]

Roberts began his legal career clerking for JudgeHenry Friendly on theUnited States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, and for JusticeWilliam Rehnquist on the U.S. Supreme Court. Roberts spent two decades working in Washington, D.C., under the administrations ofRonald Reagan (R) andGeorge H.W. Bush (R) and in private practice at Hogan & Hartson.^[2]

Before joining the Supreme Court, Roberts served as a judge on theUnited States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit from 2003 to 2005.^[2]

In 2007, Roberts described his vision aschief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court as building more unanimity among the justices and working to issue fewer 5-4 decisions.^[3][4] According toSCOTUSblog, 20 percent of all cases decided duringThe Roberts Court—the 2005-2024 Terms—have been decided in 5-3 or 5-4 decisions, and 45 percent of the cases were decided unanimously.^[5] In 2025, Dr. Adam Feldman's analysis of term data concluded that unanimity had declined over the course of Roberts' tenure aschief justice, "From 2010 to 2016, unanimous rulings often made up half of the court’s decisions or more. The high-water mark for this period—64 percent—came in the 2013 term. Today, that number is falling slowly but perceptibly–down from 50 percent in 2022 to 44 percent in 2023 to 42 percent in the 2024-25 term."^[6]

Over time, Roberts has expressed his view that the Court is not a political branch of government. In 2009, Roberts said of the Court, "The most important thing for the public to understand is that we are not a political branch of government. They don’t elect us. If they don’t like what we are doing, it’s more or less just too bad, other than impeachment...”^[7] In 2022,Associated Press Reporter Colleen Slevin covered Roberts' first public appearance after the Court's ruling inDobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022) striking down the constitutional right to abortion, writing, "Roberts has spoken out repeatedly about the importance of the judiciary’s independence and to rebut perceptions of the court as a political institution not much different than Congress or the presidency."^[8]

Roberts’notable opinions include cases concerning theAffordable Care Act,^[9] racial discrimination in school admissions,^[10] the President of the United States' appointment and removal powers,^[11] tax breaks for religiously-affiliated schools,^[12] the right to abortion under the U.S. Constitution,^[13] theVoting Rights Act,^[14] and Native American tribal nations’ health care funding.^[15]Click here to read more about Chief Justice Roberts' noteworthy opinions.

Judicial nominations and appointments

United States Supreme Court (2005-present)

Nomination Tracker
Nominee Information
Name: John G. Roberts, Jr.
Court:Supreme Court of the United States
Progress
Confirmed 23 days after nomination.
ANominated: September 6, 2005
AABA Rating:Unanimously Well Qualified
Questionnaire:
AHearing: September 12-15, 2005
Hearing Transcript:Hearing Transcript
QFRs:(Hover over QFRs to read more)
AReported: September 22, 2005
AConfirmed: September 29, 2005
AVote: 78-22

Roberts was first nominated to theSupreme Court of the United States by PresidentGeorge W. Bush (R) on July 19, 2005, to fill the vacancy ofSandra Day O'Connor, who retired in 2005. President Bush withdrew his nomination of Roberts whenChief JusticeWilliam Rehnquist passed away on September 3, 2005, in order to renominate Roberts to become the 17thChief Justice of theSupreme Court. President Bush renominated Roberts on September 6, 2005. President Bush asked theU.S. Senate to expedite his nomination to fill the vacancy prior to the start of theSupreme Court's October Term 2005.^[2]

During hisSenate Judiciary Committee hearing, Roberts stated that if confirmed to the post, he would approach cases with an open mind. He compared his role aschief justice to a baseball umpire, stating, "My job is to call balls and strikes, not pitch or bat."^[16]

On September 22nd, theSenate Judiciary Committee approved Roberts' nomination by a vote of 13-5, with Senators Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.),Dick Durbin (D-Ill.),Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.),Joe Biden (D-Del.), andDianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) casting the dissenting votes. The full U.S. Senate confirmed Roberts on September 29th with a vote of 78-22.^[17]

District of Columbia Court of Appeals (2003-2005)

Roberts was first nominated by PresidentGeorge H.W. Bush (R) to serve on theU.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 1992. His nomination was never taken up for a vote, and he returned to private practice after President Bush lost the 1992 presidential election to PresidentBill Clinton (D).^[18][19]

In May 2001, Roberts was appointed to theU.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by PresidentGeorge W. Bush (R). His nomination never received a vote by theSenate Judiciary Committee, so it did not progress to the full U.S. Senate.^[2][18][19]

President Bush renominated Roberts in January 2003, after Republicans gained a majority in the U.S. Senate, and he was unanimously confirmed on May 8, 2003.^[2][18][19]

During his two years on the bench, Roberts authored 49 opinions, two of which elicited dissents from other judges. Roberts authored three dissenting opinions. Roberts left the court upon his elevation to the Supreme Court of the United States in 2005.^[2][18][19]

Biography

Early life and education

Roberts was born inBuffalo, New York, on January 27, 1955. His religion is Roman Catholic. He attended private schools as a child and graduated from La Lumiere School—at the time an all-boys Roman Catholic boarding school—inLaPorte, Indiana, in 1973.^{[20][21][22][23][24]}

Roberts attended Harvard University for both his undergraduate and law degrees. He received his undergraduate degree from Harvard College in 1976. He wrote his thesis on British liberalism in the early 20th century and graduatedsumma cum laude. He received hisJ.D. from Harvard Law School in 1979. At Harvard Law School, he served as managing editor of theHarvard Law Review and graduatedmagna cum laude.^[25][26]

Professional career

• 2005-Present:Chief justice,Supreme Court of the United States
• 2003-2005: Judge,United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
• 1993-2003: Partner, Hogan & Hartson LLP
• 1989-1993: Principal deputy solicitor general,United States Department of Justice
• 1986-1989: Attorney, Hogan & Hartson
• 1982-1986: Associate counsel to PresidentRonald Reagan (R), White House Counsel's Office
• 1981-1982: Special assistant toAttorney General William French Smith,United States Department of Justice
• 1980-1981: Law clerk, Hon.William Rehnquist,Supreme Court of the United States
• 1979-1980: Law clerk, Hon.Henry Friendly,United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit
• 1978: Law clerk, Carlsmith, Carlsmith, Wichman & Case
• 1977: Law clerk, Ice, Miller, Donadio & Ryan

Executive branch service

Upon his graduation, Roberts clerked for JudgeHenry Friendly on theUnited States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, and then clerked forChief JusticeWilliam Rehnquist. Afterward, Roberts was appointed to serve in the executive branch during the administrations of Republican presidentsRonald Reagan andGeorge H.W. Bush.^[2]

Reagan administration

Roberts served as special assistant to U.S. Attorney General William French Smith from 1981 to 1982. His work in that position included advising the attorney general, writing speeches, and representing the attorney general in meetings with executive branch and state and local government officials.^[2][18][19]

From 1982 to 1986, Roberts served as associate counsel to PresidentRonald Reagan's (R) White House Office of Counsel under Fred F. Fielding. In this position, he reviewed bills submitted to the president by Congress, drafted and reviewed executive orders, and performed general legal reviews of presidential activities.^[27][26]

George H.W. Bush administration

Roberts served as principal deputysolicitor general in theUnited States Department of Justice from 1989 to 1993. As principal deputy solicitor general, Roberts briefed and argued a variety of cases before theSupreme Court of the United States on behalf of the U.S. government.^[26]

Private practice

From 1986 to 1989, Roberts practiced law inWashington, D.C. as an associate at Hogan & Hartson LLP. He made partner in 1988 while building a civil litigation practice focused on appellate matters. Roberts left the firm in 1989 to serve as principal deputysolicitor general in PresidentGeorge H.W. Bush's (R) administration. He returned in 1993 to lead the firm's appellate practice group.^[28]

Roberts argued his first case before theSupreme Court of the United States in 1989. As a court-appointed attorney, he successfully represented his client against the United States government inUnited States v. Halper (1989), a double jeopardy case decided by a unanimous court.^[29] Roberts would ultimately argue a total of 39 cases before theSupreme Court of the United States, with successful rulings in 25 of those cases.

In 2000, Roberts provided legal counsel and expertise to then-presidential candidateGeorge W. Bush's (R) legal team—including his brother and then-Governor of FloridaJeb Bush (R)—related to the 2000 presidential election recount and pending U.S. Supreme Court case deciding whether the recount was permissible. Future SCOTUS justicesBrett Kavanaugh andAmy Coney Barrett—appointed to the Court by PresidentDonald Trump (R) in 2018 and 2020, respectively—also provided legal assistance to Bush's team during the recount case. Ultimately, SCOTUS ruled that Florida's vote recount order was unconstitutional andGeorge W. Bush became 43rdPresident of the United States.^[30][31]Click here to learn more about the U.S. Supreme Court caseBush v. Gore (2000) concerning the disputed election results in Florida.

Approach to the law

Generally considered to be a practitioner ofjudicial restraint, Roberts most often votes with the conservative wing of the court. Aschief justice, Roberts has described his approach as trying to build more unanimity and working to issue fewer 5-4 decisions.^[32][33]Oyez, a law project created by Cornell’s Legal Information Institute, Justia, and Chicago-Kent College of Law, said that Roberts is an "avid supporter of the belief that the role of the court is an umpire, meaning that the role is to interpret the rules, not create them."^[34] Although considered a conservative member of the court,Politico noted that Roberts has sometimes sided with the court's liberal justices. Josh Gerstein wrote that "Roberts’ tendency to side with liberals in some cases embraced by many Republican activists seems to grate on many conservative lawyers, including some who helped lead the fight to confirm him."^[35]

Martin-Quinn score

Roberts' Martin-Quinn score following the 2023-2024 term was 0.51, making him the sixth-most conservative justice on the court at that time.Martin-Quinn scores were developed by political scientists Andrew Martin and Kevin Quinn from the University of Michigan, and measure the justices of the Supreme Court along an ideological continuum. The further from zero on the scale, the more conservative (>0) or liberal (<0) the justice. The chart below details every justice's Martin-Quinn score for the 2023-2024 term. These are preliminary scores provided by Kevin Quinn that may differ slightly from the final version of the scores that Martin and Quinn will make publicly available at a later date.

Video discussion

Roberts spoke at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in April 2017 about his approach to the law, the role of the Supreme Court, and the confirmation process. The video of that event is embedded below.

Supreme Court statistics

Opinions by year

Below is a table of the number of opinions, concurrences, and dissents that Roberts has issued since joining the Supreme Court, according to the data fromCornell University’s Legal Information Institute and from the annualStat Pack produced by the websiteSCOTUSBlog. This information is updated annually at the end of each term.^[36][37] Information for the 2022 term is from a dataset provided by Dr. Adam Feldman, author ofEmpirical SCOTUS. Data for the 2022-2023 term does not include concurrences and dissents in part. Information for the 2023 term is from theEmpirical SCOTUS 2023 Stat Review.

• Click here for information on Justice Roberts' opinions from 2005 to 2022.

  Opinions written by year, Roberts
  	2005 - 2006	2006 - 2007	2007 - 2008	2008 - 2009	2009 - 2010	2010 - 2011	2011 - 2012	2012 - 2013	2013 - 2014	2014 - 2015	2015 - 2016	2016 - 2017	2017 - 2018	2018 - 2019	2019 - 2020	2020 - 2021	2021 - 2022
  Opinions	1	7	8	8	8	7	8	8	7	7	7	8	6	7	7	7	8
  Concurrences	0	2	0	5	3	3	0	4	2	2	2	0	1	2	1	2	2
  Dissents	0	1	3	4	4	2	3	7	3	5	5	2	4	3	1	2	1
  Totals	1	12	11	17	17	12	11	17	12	14	11	10	11	12	9	11	11

Justice agreement

In the 2023-2024 term, Roberts had the highest agreement rate withBrett Kavanaugh. Roberts had the lowest agreement rate withKetanji Brown Jackson.^[38] In the 2022-2023 term, Roberts had the highest agreement rate withBrett Kavanaugh. He had the lowest agreement rates withClarence Thomas.^[39] This does not include agreements in part.^[40]

The table below highlights Roberts' agreement rate with each justice on the court during that term.^[41][42]

Frequency in majority

In the 2023-2024 term, Roberts was in the majority in 97 percent of decisions. He was in the majority more often than the eight other justices.^[38]In the 2022-2023 term, Roberts was in the majority in 95 percent of decisions. He and JusticeBrett Kavanaugh, who was in the majority in 96 percent of decisions, were in the majority more often than the seven other justices.^[39][43][44]

Since the 2011-2012 term, Roberts has been in the majority at least 80 percent of the time each term, and been in the majority more than 90 percent of the time ten times. Across those terms, he has been in the majority for 91 percent of all cases.^[44][38]

Noteworthy cases

See also:Noteworthy cases heard by current justices on the U.S. Supreme Court

The noteworthy cases listed in this section include any case where the justice authored a 5-4 majority opinion or an 8-1 dissent. Other cases may be included in this section if they set or overturn an established legal precedent, are a major point of discussion in an election campaign, receive substantial media attention related to the justice's ruling, or based on our editorial judgment that the case is noteworthy. For more on how we decide which cases are noteworthy, clickhere.

Since he joined the court through the 2023-2024 term, Roberts authored the majority opinion in a 5-4 decision 34 times and authored one dissent in an 8-1 decision. The table below details these cases by year.^[45]

U.S. Supreme Court noteworthy opinions

• SCOTUS 2024 term (Click to expand)
  
  

  Imprisoned people entitled to jury trial on Prison Litigation Reform Act exhaustion (2024)

  See also:Perttu v. Richards

  Justice Roberts authored a 5-4 majority opinion inPerttu v. Richards, holding that parties are entitled to a jury trial on Prison Litigation Reform Act exhaustion when that issue is intertwined with the merits of a claim that requires a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment. Roberts was joined in the majority by JusticesSonia Sotomayor,Elena Kagan,Neil Gorsuch, andKetanji Brown Jackson.^[46]

  “	If Congress had expressly provided in the PLRA that exhaustion disputes must be resolved by judges, then we would have been required to consider today whether such a provision violates the Seventh Amendment. But it is a ‘cardinal principle’ that we not address such a constitutional question unless necessary. Tull v. United States, 481 U. S. 412, 417, n. 3 (1987). Meanwhile, as we have shown, the usual practice of the federal courts in cases of intertwinement is to send common issues to the jury. Because nothing in the PLRA suggests Congress intended to depart from that practice here, we hold that parties are entitled to a jury trial on PLRA exhaustion when that issue is intertwined with the merits of a claim protected by the Seventh Amendment. The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is affirmed.[47]	”
  —JusticeChief Justice John Roberts

• SCOTUS 2023 term (Click to expand)
  
  

  Native American tribal nations’ health care funding (2024)

  See also:Becerra v. San Carlos Apache Tribe

  Roberts authored a 5-4 opinion in the caseBecerra v. San Carlos Apache Tribe, consolidated withBecerra v. Northern Arapaho Tribe, holding that "The Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDA) requires the Indian Health Service (IHS) to pay the contract support costs that a tribe incurs when it collects and spends program income to further the functions, services, activities, and programs transferred to it from IHS in a self-determination contract."^[48] JusticeBrett Kavanaugh filed a dissenting opinion, joined by JusticesClarence Thomas,Samuel Alito, andAmy Coney Barrett.

  In the court's majority opinion, Chief Justice Roberts wrote:^[48]

  “	Contract support costs are necessary to prevent a funding gap between tribes and IHS. By definition, these are costs that IHS does not incur when it provides healthcare services funded by congressional appropriations and third-party income. §§5325(a)(2)(A) and (B). But they are costs that tribes must bear when they provide, on their own,healthcare services funded by the Secretarial amount and program income. If IHS does not cover costs to support a tribe’s expenditure of program income, the tribe would have to divert some program income to pay such costs, or it would have to pay them out of its own pocket. Either way, the tribe would face a systemic funding shortfall relative to IHS—a penalty for pursuing self-determination. The self-determination contracts of the San Carlos Apache Tribe and Northern Arapaho Tribe require them to collect and spend program income to further the functions, services, activities, and programs transferred to them from IHS. When the Tribes do so and incur administrative costs, ISDA requires IHS to pay those support costs.[47]	”
  —Chief Justice Roberts

• SCOTUS 2022 term (Click to expand)
  
  

  Alabama redistricting map and the Voting Rights Act (2023)

  See also:Allen v. Milligan

  Roberts authored an opinion inAllen v. Milligan. In a 5-4 decision, the courtaffirmed the judgment of theUnited States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, holding that the plaintiffs showed a reasonable likelihood of success concerning their claim that Alabama's redistricting map (HB1) violates Section 2 of theVoting Rights Act.Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the opinion of the court.^[49][50]

  In the court's majority opinion,Chief Justice John Roberts wrote:^[49]

  “	But this Court has never held that a State’s adherence to a previously used districting plan can defeat a §2 claim. If that were the rule, a State could immunize from challenge a new racially discriminatory redistricting plan simply by claiming that it resembled an old racially discriminatory plan. That is not the law: §2 does not permit a State to provide some voters “less opportunity . . . to participate in the political process” just because the State has done it before. ... The heart of these cases is not about the law as it exists. It is about Alabama’s attempt to remake our §2 jurisprudence anew. The centerpiece of the State’s effort is what it calls the“race-neutral benchmark.” The theory behind it is this: Using modern computer technology, mapmakers can now generate millions of possible districting maps for a given State.The maps can be designed to comply with traditional districting criteria but to not consider race. The mapmaker can determine how many majority-minority districts exist in each map, and can then calculate the median or average number of majority-minority districts in the entire multi-million-map set. That number is called the race-neutral benchmark. ... [W]e find Alabama’s new approach to §2 compelling neither in theory nor in practice.[47]	”
  —Chief Justice John Roberts

• SCOTUS 2021 term (Click to expand)
  
  

  No right to abortion under the U.S. Constitution (2022)

  See also:Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization

  Roberts authored an opinion concurring in judgment inDobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Roberts wrote that he would uphold Mississippi's abortion law but not overturnRoe andCasey. Associate JusticeSamuel Alito authored the majority opinion, holding that the U.S. Constitution did not provide a right to abortion. Alito was also joined by Associate JusticesClarence Thomas,Neil Gorsuch,Brett Kavanaugh, andAmy Coney Barrett. Alito wrote:

  “	We hold thatRoe andCasey must be overruled. The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders ofRoe andCasey now chiefly rely—the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That provision has been held to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution, but any such right must be “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.”Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U. S. 702, 721 (1997) (internal quotation marks omitted). The right to abortion does not fall within this category.[47]	”
  —Justice Alito

  In his concurring opinion, Roberts wrote:

  “	I would take a more measured course. I agree with the Court that the viability line established byRoe andCasey should be discarded under a straightforward stare decisis analysis. That line never made any sense. Our abortion precedents describe the right at issue as a woman’s right to choose to terminate her pregnancy. That right should therefore extend far enough to ensure a reasonable opportunity to choose, but need not extend any further—certainly not all the way to viability. Mississippi’s law allows a woman three months to obtain an abortion, well beyond the point at which it is considered “late” to discover a pregnancy. See A. Ayoola,Late Recognition of Unintended Pregnancies, 32 Pub. Health Nursing 462 (2015) (pregnancy is discoverable and ordinarily discovered by six weeks of gestation). I see no sound basis for questioning the adequacy of that opportunity. But that is all I would say, out of adherence to a simple yet fundamental principle of judicial restraint: If it is not necessary to decide more to dispose of a case, then it is necessary not to decide more. Perhaps we are not always perfect in following that command, and certainly there are cases that warrant an exception. But this is not one of them. Surely we should adhere closely to principles of judicial restraint here, where the broader path the Court chooses entails repudiating a constitutional right we have not only previously recognized, but also expressly reaffirmed applying the doctrine of stare decisis. The Court’s opinion is thoughtful and thorough, but those virtues cannot compensate for the fact that its dramatic and consequential ruling is unnecessary to decide the case before us.[47]	”
  —Chief Justice Roberts

  Transportation orders in post-conviction claims (2022)

  See also:Shoop v. Twyford

  Roberts authored a 5-4 majority opinion inShoop v. Twyford, holding that a transportation order allowing a prisoner to search for new evidence is notnecessary or appropriate in aid of a federal court’s adjudication of ahabeas corpus action when the prisoner has not shown that the desired evidence would be admissible in connection with a particular claim for relief.^[51]

  In the court's majority opinion, Chief Justice Roberts wrote:^[51]

  “	The All Writs Act authorizes federal courts to “issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” 28 U.S.C. §1651(a). In this case, the District Court ordered the State to transport a prisoner in its custody to a hospital for medical testing. The prisoner argued that the testing could reveal evidence helpful in his effort to obtain habeas corpus relief. The question is whether the District Court’s order is “necessary or appropriate in aid of ” the federal court’s resolution of the prisoner’shabeas case. We hold that it is not, and therefore reverse.[47]	”
  —Chief Justice Roberts

• SCOTUS 2020 term (Click to expand)
  
  

  Jurisdictional requirements of eminent domain under the Natural Gas Act (2021)

  See also:PennEast Pipeline Co. v. New Jersey

  Roberts authored a 5-4 majority opinion inPennEast Pipeline Co. v. New Jersey, holding that Section 717f(h) authorizes FERC certificate holders to condemn all necessary rights-of-way, whether owned by private parties or by states. Chief Justice Roberts was joined in the majority by JusticesStephen Breyer,Samuel Alito,Sonia Sotomayor, andBrett Kavanaugh. JusticeNeil Gorsuch filed a dissenting opinion, joined by JusticeClarence Thomas. JusticeAmy Coney Barrett filed a dissenting opinion, joined by JusticesClarence Thomas,Elena Kagan, andNeil Gorsuch.^[52]

  In the court's majority opinion, Chief Justice Roberts wrote:^[52]

  “	From humble beginnings in central Indiana, the Nation’s interstate pipeline system has grown to span hundreds of thousands of miles. This development was made possible by the enactment of §717f(h) in 1947. By its terms, §717f(h) authorizes FERC certificate holders to condemn all necessary rights-of-way, whether owned by private parties or States. Such condemnation actions do not offend state sovereignty, because the States consented at the founding to the exercise of the federal eminent domain power, whether by public officials or private delegatees. Because the Third Circuit reached a contrary conclusion, we reverse the judgment below and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.[47]	”
  —Chief Justice Roberts

  Authority of administrative patent judges in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (2021)

  See also:United States v. Arthrex Inc.

  Roberts authored a 5-4 majority opinion inUnited States v. Arthrex Inc., holding that the system granting Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) the power to issue final decisions without effective oversight was unconstitutional. The court ruled 7-2 to fix the constitutional issue by removing the statutory provisions that blocked the director of the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) from unilaterally reviewing APJ decisions. Chief Justice Roberts was joined in the majority by JusticesSamuel Alito,Neil Gorsuch,Brett Kavanaugh, andAmy Coney Barrett. JusticeClarence Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, joined by JusticesStephen Breyer,Sonia Sotomayor andElena Kagan in parts I and II.^[53]

  In the court's majority opinion, Chief Justice Roberts wrote:^[53]

  “

  Today, we reaffirm and apply the rule fromEdmond that the exercise of executive power by inferior officers must at some level be subject to the direction and supervision of an officer nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The Constitution therefore forbids the enforcement of statutory restrictions on the Director that insulate the decisions of APJs from his direction and supervision. To be clear, the Director need not review every decision of the PTAB. What matters is that the Director have the discretion to review decisions rendered by APJs. In this way, the President remains responsible for the exercise of executive power—and through him, the exercise of executive power remains accountable to the people.[47]

  ”

• SCOTUS 2019 term (Click to expand)
  
  

  Decision to end DACA (2020)

  See also:Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California

  Roberts authored a 5-4 majority opinion inDepartment of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, holding theU.S. Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) decision to end theDeferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program did not properly follow theAdministrative Procedure Act (APA). Chief Justice Roberts was joined in the majority by JusticesRuth Bader Ginsburg,Stephen Breyer,Elena Kagan, andSonia Sotomayor.^[54]

  In the majority opinion, Chief Justice Roberts wrote:^[54]

  “	The dispute before the Court is not whether DHS may rescind DACA. All parties agree that it may. The dispute is instead primarily about the procedure the agency followed in doing so. ... Because DHS was 'not writing on a blank slate,' ... it was required to assess whether there were reliance interests, determine whether they were significant, and weigh any such interests against competing policy concerns. ... Acting Secretary Duke should have considered those matters but did not. That failure was arbitrary and capricious in violation of the APA.[47]	”
  —Chief Justice Roberts

  Copyright of a state's official annotated code (2019)

  See also:Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org Inc.

  InGeorgia v. Public.Resource.Org Inc., the Courtaffirmed the judgment of theUnited States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, holding "under the government edicts doctrine, officials empowered to speak with the force of law cannot be the authors of the works they create in the course of their official duties." Therefore, "the OCGA annotations are ineligible for copyright protection."^[55] Roberts authored the Court's 5-4 majority opinion. He was joined in the majority by JusticesSonia Sotomayor,Elena Kagan,Neil Gorsuch, andBrett Kavanaugh.^[55]

  “	Under what has been dubbed the government edicts doctrine, officials empowered to speak with the force of law cannot be the authors of—and therefore cannot copyright—the works they create in the course of their official duties. ... Copyright does not vest in works that are (1) created by judges and legislators (2) in the course of their judicial and legislative duties.[47]	”
  —Chief Justice Roberts

  Tax breaks for religiously-affiliated schools (2019)

  See also:Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue

  Roberts authored a 5-4 majority opinion inEspinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, holding the application ofArticle X, Section 6 of theMontana Constitution, known as Montana'sBlaine Amendment banning the use of public funds for aiding a religious school, violated the free exercise clause of the U.S. Constitution. Chief Justice Roberts was joined in the majority by JusticesClarence Thomas,Samuel Alito,Neil Gorsuch, andBrett Kavanaugh.^[56]

  The chief justice wrote:^[56]

  “	Disqualifying otherwise eligible recipients from a public benefit “solely because of their religious character” imposes “a penalty on the free exercise of religion that triggers the most exacting scrutiny.” ... Montana’s no-aid provision bars religious schools from public benefits solely because of the religious character of the schools. The provision also bars parents who wish to send their children to a religious school from those same benefits, again solely because of the religious character of the school. This is apparent from the plain text.[47]	”
  —Chief Justice Roberts

  President's appointment and removal powers (2019)

  See also:Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

  InSeila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the U.S. Supreme Court nullified the9th Circuit's ruling with a 5-4 vote against theConsumer Financial Protection Bureau and sent the case back to the 9th Circuit for further proceedings. Roberts authored the majority opinion, holding that the structure of theConsumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)—an independent agency that exercised executive powers and had a director protected from at-will termination by the president—was unconstitutional. Specifically, a majority of the justices ruled that making the director of the CFPB removable by the president alone for inefficiency, neglect, or malfeasance violated the separation of powers. Chief Justice Roberts was joined in the majority by JusticesClarence Thomas,Samuel Alito,Neil Gorsuch, andBrett Kavanaugh.^[57]

  In the opinion of the Court, Roberts wrote:^[57]

  “

  A decade ago, wedeclined to extend Congress’s authority to limit the President’s removal power to a new situation, never before confronted by the Court. We do the same today. In our constitutional system, the executive power belongs to the President, and that power generally includes the ability to supervise and remove the agents who wield executive power in his stead. While we have previously upheld limits on the President’s removal authority in certain contexts, we decline to do so when it comes to principal officers who, acting alone, wield significant executive power. The Constitution requires that such officials remain dependent on the President, who in turn is accountable to the people.[47]

  ”

  
  

• SCOTUS 2018 term (Click to expand)
  
  

  Census citizenship question (2018)

  See also:Department of Commerce v. New York

  Roberts authored a 5-4 majority opinion inDepartment of Commerce v. New York, ruling that theTrump administration's decision to add a citizenship question to the census did not violate the Enumeration Clause or the Census Act, but that Commerce SecretaryWilbur Ross' rationale for the decision was inconsistent with the administrative record. Roberts was joined in part by the following justices:^[58]

  • The justices ruled unanimously in Parts I and II of the decision, which provided background on Commerce SecretaryWilbur Ross' decision to add a citizenship question to the 2020 U.S. Census and affirmed that "at least some" of the respondents in the case had Article III standing.
  • JusticesClarence Thomas,Samuel Alito,Neil Gorsuch, andBrett Kavanaugh joined in Parts III, IV-B, and IV-C. Part III held that the citizenship question did not violate the Enumeration Clause. Part IV-B held that the evidence before Ross supported his decision to add the citizenship question to the census. Part IV-C held that Ross' decision did not violate the Census Act.
  • JusticesClarence Thomas,Ruth Bader Ginsburg,Stephen Breyer,Sonia Sotomayor,Elena Kagan, andBrett Kavanaugh joined in Part IV-A, which ruled that Ross' action was subject tojudicial review.
  • JusticesRuth Bader Ginsburg,Stephen Breyer,Sonia Sotomayor, andElena Kagan joined in Part V of the decision, which held that Ross' rationale for adding the citizenship question in order to support enforcement of the Voting Rights Acts was inconsistent with the administrative record.

  In the Court's opinion, Roberts wrote:^[59]

  “

  We do not hold that the agency decision here was substantively invalid. But agencies must pursue their goals reasonably. Reasoned decisionmaking under the Administrative Procedure Act calls for an explanation for agency action. What was provided here was more of a distraction.[47]

  ”

  Partisan gerrymandering (2018)

  See also:Rucho v. Common Cause andLamone v. Benisek

  Roberts authored a 5-4 majority opinion in a joint ruling forRucho v. Common Cause andLamone v. Benisek. The court ruled that partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions that fall beyond the jurisdiction of the federal judiciary. Roberts was joined in the majority by JusticesClarence Thomas,Samuel Alito,Neil Gorsuch, andBrett Kavanaugh. Roberts wrote:^[60]

  “

  Partisan gerrymandering claims rest on an instinct that groups with a certain level of political support should enjoy a commensurate level of political power and influence. Explicitly or implicitly, a districting map is alleged to be unconstitutional because it makes it too difficult for one party to translate statewide support into seats in the legislature. But such a claim is based on a 'norm that does not exist' in our electoral system—'statewide elections for representatives along party lines. ... [Federal] courts are not equipped to apportion political power as a matter of fairness, nor is there any basis for concluding that they were authorized to do so.[47]

  ”

  State-litigation requirement fromWilliamson Cty. Planning v. Hamilton Bank (1985) overruled (2018)

  See also:Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania

  Roberts authored a 5-4 majority opinion that overturned theexahustion requirement established inWilliamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City (1985) that a person claiming unlawful taking of their property by a state or local government must first seek all available options for redress in a state court before petitioning a federal court. It found that the requirement conflicted with theSan Remo Hotel, L.P. v. City and County of San Francisco (2005) decision 20 years later that held a state court's ruling in such cases precludes any federal judgment, creating a situation where a plaintiff had no opportunity to appeal a taking to the federal government until after it was too late for the federal government to act. Roberts was joined in the majority by JusticesClarence Thomas,Samuel Alito,Neil Gorsuch, andBrett Kavanaugh. Roberts wrote:^[61]

  “

  We now conclude that the state-litigation requirement imposes an unjustifiable burden on takings plaintiffs, conflicts with the rest of our takings jurisprudence, and must be overruled. A property owner has an actionable Fifth Amendment takings claim when the government takes his property without paying for it. That does not mean that the government must provide compensation in advance of a taking or risk having its action invalidated: So long as the property owner has some way to obtain compensation after the fact, governments need not fear that courts will enjoin their activities. But it does mean that the property owner has suffered a violation of his Fifth Amendment rights when the government takes his property without just compensation, and therefore may bring his claim in federal court under §1983 at that time.[47]

  ”

  Ambiguous agreements cannot provide necessary contractual basis for class arbitration (2018)

  See also:Lamps Plus Inc. v. Varela

  Prior to the ruling, Supreme Court precedent underStolt-Nielsen (2010) "held that a court may not compel classwide arbitration when an agreement is silent on the availability of such arbitration. InLamps Plus, theNinth Circuit ruled thatStolt-Nielsen did not apply because the Lamps agreement was ambiguous, not silent, concerning class arbitration."^[62] SCOTUSreversed the Ninth Circuit; Chief Justice Roberts authored the 5-4 opinion, holding that "an ambiguous agreement cannot provide the necessary contractual basis for concluding that the parties agreed to submit to class arbitration," under the Federal Arbitration Act.^[63] Roberts was joined in the majority by JusticesClarence Thomas,Samuel Alito,Neil Gorsuch, andBrett Kavanaugh. Roberts wrote:^[63]

  “

  Courts may not infer from an ambiguous agreement that parties have consented to arbitrate on a classwide basis. The doctrine ofcontra proferentem cannot substitute for the requisite affirmative “contractual basis for concluding that the part[ies]agreed to [class arbitration].”Stolt-Nielsen, 559 U. S., at 684. We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.[47]

  ”

• SCOTUS 2014 term (Click to expand)
  
  

  
  

  Affordable Care Act tax credits extend to federally created exchanges (2015)

  See also:King v. Burwell (2015)

  Under theAffordable Care Act (ACA), state governments were required to establish a marketplace through which residents could purchase health insurance., known as exchanges. If a state failed to create an exchange, the federal government would establish one under the authority of theU.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Under the ACA, individuals were required to purchase health insurance or risk paying a penalty on their annual income tax returns unless they qualified for a low-income exemption. To limit the number of individuals faling under the exemption, the ACA authorized tax credits to offset the cost of coverage; however, the statutory language stipulated that the credits were for those who enrolled via exchanges established by state governments. TheInternal Revenue Service (IRS), by regulation, extended the tax credits to those who enrolled through a marketplace created by the Department of Health and Human Services. InKing v. Burwell (2015), the Court examined the legal question—whether the IRS regulation violated congressional prerogatives under the ACA.^[64]

  Writing for the six-justice majority,Chief JusticeJohn Roberts held that Congress' intent was for the tax credits to go to individuals who signed up for health insurance through the exchanges regardless of whether the exchanges were established by the federal government or a state government:^[64]

  “	In a democracy, the power to make the law rests with those chosen by the people. Our role is more confined—“to say what the law is.”Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177 (1803). That is easier in some cases than in others. But in every case we must respect the role of the Legislature, and take care not to undo what it has done. A fair reading of legislation demands a fair understanding of the legislative plan. Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them. If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter. Section 36B can fairly be read consistent with what we see as Congress’s plan, and that is the reading we adopt. The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit is Affirmed.[47]	”
  —Chief JusticeJohn Roberts

  
  

• SCOTUS 2011 term (Click to expand)
  
  

  
  

  Affordable Care Act allowed to stand (2012)

  See also:National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012)

  In June 2012, Chief Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion inNational Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, a case challenging theObama administration'sAffordable Care Act. Challengers to the law argued that the federal government's power under theCommerce Clause was not valid to make individuals purchase a good or service, in this case, healthcare. Roberts agreed with that interpretation. However, he allowed the law to stand on the basis of Congress' authority to levy a tax.^[65]}}

  For a thorough explanation of the federal healthcare act and the challenges it faced in court, see:Obamacare overview.

  Response

  Following the ruling, SenatorRand Paul (R-Ky.) introduced a constitutional amendment that would mandate that every piece of legislation passed byCongress apply to every U.S. citizen and members of the House and Senate equally. In a statement about the legislation, Paul said:^[66]

  “	My amendment says basically that everybody including Justice Roberts — who seems to be such a fan of Obamacare — gets it too. See, right now, Justice Roberts is still continuing to have federal employee health insurance subsidized by the taxpayer. And if he likes Obamacare so much, I’m going to give him an amendment that gives Obamacare to Justice Roberts.[47]	”
  —SenatorRand Paul (R-Ky.)

  In his remarks following the ruling, PresidentBarack Obama (D) said:^[67]

  “	Good afternoon. Earlier today, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act -- the name of the health care reform we passed two years ago. In doing so, they've reaffirmed a fundamental principle that here in America -- in the wealthiest nation on Earth – no illness or accident should lead to any family’s financial ruin. I know there will be a lot of discussion today about the politics of all this, about who won and who lost. That’s how these things tend to be viewed here in Washington. But that discussion completely misses the point. Whatever the politics, today’s decision was a victory for people all over this country whose lives will be more secure because of this law and the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold it. ... The highest Court in the land has now spoken. We will continue to implement this law. And we'll work together to improve on it where we can. But what we won’t do -- what the country can’t afford to do -- is refight the political battles of two years ago, or go back to the way things were. With today’s announcement, it’s time for us to move forward -- to implement and, where necessary, improve on this law. And now is the time to keep our focus on the most urgent challenge of our time: putting people back to work, paying down our debt, and building an economy where people can have confidence that if they work hard, they can get ahead.[47]	”
  —PresidentBarack Obama (D)

• SCOTUS 2006 term (Click to expand)
  
  

  Constitutionality of race-based school assignments (2007)

  See also:Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1 (2007)

  In June 2007,Chief Justice Roberts authored the plurality opinion inParents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1. At issue was whether it was constitutionally permissible for a public school district to (1) classify students by race and (2) rely upon such racial classifications in making school assignments.Cite error: Closing</ref> missing for<ref> tag

  The school districts involved voluntarily adopted student assignment plans that relied upon race to determine which public schools certain children may attend. TheSeattle, Washington school district classified children as white or nonwhite, while theJefferson County school district inLouisville, Kentucky classified children as Black or “other.” In Seattle, this racial classification was used to allocate slots in oversubscribed high schools. In Jefferson County, it was used to make certain elementary school assignments and to rule on transfer requests. In each case, the school districts relied upon an individual student's race in assigning them to a particular school so that the racial balance at the school fell within a predetermined range based on the racial composition of the school district as a whole. Parents of students denied assignment to particular schools under these plans solely because of their race filed a lawsuit, challenging the assignment systems allocating children to different public schools on the basis of race for allegedly violating theFourteenth Amendment guarantee of equal protection.^[68][69]

  Chief Justice Roberts delivered the majority opinion of the Court, writing:^[68][69]

  “

  The school districts in these cases voluntarily adopted student assignment plans that rely upon race to determine which public schools certain children may attend. The Seattle school district classifies children as white or nonwhite; the Jefferson County school district as black or “other.” In Seattle, this racial classification is used to allocate slots in oversubscribed high schools. In Jefferson County, it is used to make certain elementary school assignments and to rule on transfer requests. In each case, the school district relies upon an individual student’s race in assigning that student to a particular school, so that the racial balance at the school falls within a predetermined range based on the racial composition of the school district as a whole. Parents of students denied assignment to particular schools under these plans solely because of their race brought suit, contending that allocating children to different public schools on the basis of race violated the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of equal protection. The Courts of Appeals below upheld the plans. We granted certiorari, and now reverse. ... The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.[47]

  ”

  
  

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit opinions

• Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit opinions (Click to expand)
  
  

  Majority opinion in case involvingzero-tolerance law at Metrorail station (2004)

  In the caseHedgepeth v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, a three-judge panel of theUnited States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that a 12-year-old girl'sFourth andFifth Amendment rights were not violated by her arrest and juvenile detention for violating azero-tolerance law against eating or drinking in a Metrorail station. Roberts penned the court's opinion, writing:^[70]

  “

  No one is very happy about the events that led to this litigation. A twelve-year-old girl was arrested, searched, and handcuffed. Her shoelaces were removed, and she was transported in the windowless rear compartment of a police vehicle to a juvenile processing center, where she was booked, fingerprinted, and detained until released to her mother some three hours later — all for eating a single french fry in a Metrorail station. The child was frightened, embarrassed, and crying throughout the ordeal. The district court described the policies that led to her arrest as "foolish," and indeed the policies were changed after those responsible endured the sort of publicity reserved for adults who make young girls cry. The question before us, however, is not whether these policies were a bad idea, but whether they violated the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution. Like the district court, we conclude that they did not, and accordingly we affirm.[47]

  ”

  
  

  Dissenting opinion in case involvingEndangered Species Act (2003)

  In the caseRancho Viejo, LLC. v. Norton (2003), theUnited States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit refused to hear an appeal on behalf of Rancho Viejo, LLC, a housing developer whose development project was halted through theEndangered Species Act by the Secretary of the Interior, as it "was likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the arroyo southwestern toad... listed as an endangered species since 1994."^[71] The company refused an alternative plan provided by the government and challenged the Act's enforcement. The lawsuit wasdismissed. Then-Circuit Judge John Roberts dissented from the denial for a rehearingen banc, writing:^[72]

  “

  The panel's approach in this case leads to the result that regulating the taking of a hapless toad that, for reasons of its own, lives its entire life in California constitutes regulating "Commerce ... among the several States." U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8, cl. 3. To be fair, the panel faithfully appliedNational Association of Home Builders v. Babbitt, 130 F.3d 1041 (D.C.Cir.1997).En banc review is appropriate because the approach of the panel in this case and NAHB now conflicts with the opinion of a sister circuit — a fact confirmed by that circuit's quotation from theNAHB dissent. SeeGDF Realty, 326 F.3d at 636 (quotingNAHB, 130 F.3d at 1067 (Sentelle, J., dissenting)). Such review would also afford the opportunity to consider alternative grounds for sustaining application of the Act that may be more consistent with Supreme Court precedent. SeeRancho Viejo, LLC v. Norton, 323 F.3d at 1067-68 n. 2.[47]

  ”

  Later, this dissent was discussed during Roberts' U.S. Supreme Court confirmation hearings. SenatorDianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), "There is a great deal of concern as what this then means for the implication for all environmental law — the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act."^[73]

About the courts

U.S. Supreme Court

TheSupreme Court of the United States is the highest judicial body in the country and leads the judicial branch of the federal government. It is often referred to by the acronymSCOTUS.^[74]

The Supreme Court consists of nine justices: theChief Justice of the United States and eightAssociate Justices. The justices are nominated by thepresident and confirmed with the"advice and consent" of theUnited States Senate perArticle II of the United States Constitution. As federal judges, the justices serve during "good behavior," which means that justices have tenure for life unless they are removed by impeachment and subsequent conviction.^[75]

The Supreme Court is the only court established by theUnited States Constitution (inArticle III); all other federal courts are created byCongress.

The Supreme Court meets inWashington, D.C., in the United States Supreme Court building. The Supreme Court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions in mid-June.^[75]

To read opinions published by this court, clickhere.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

District of Columbia Circuit
Court of Appeals
Judgeships
Posts: 11
Judges: 11
Vacancies: 0
Judges
Chief:Sri Srinivasan
Active judges: Julianna Michelle Childs,Bradley Garcia,Karen Henderson,Greg Katsas,Patricia Ann Millett,Florence Pan,Cornelia T. L. Pillard,Neomi Rao,Srikanth Srinivasan,Justin Walker,Robert Leon Wilkins Senior judges: James Buckley,Harry Edwards,Douglas Ginsburg,Arthur Randolph,Judith Rogers,David Sentelle,David Tatel

TheUnited States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is afederal appellate court with appellatejurisdiction. It hears appeals from theUnited States District Court for the District of Columbia and its rulings may be appealed to theSupreme Court of the United States.

This court should not be confused with theDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals, which is equivalent to a state supreme court in the District of Columbia, or with theFederal Circuit Court of Appeals, whose jurisdiction is limited by subject matter. Appeals are heard in the E. Barrett Prettyman Federal Courthouse inWashington, D.C.

Eight judges of the District of Columbia Circuit went on to serve on theSupreme Court of the United States: Fred M. Vinson, Wiley Rutledge, Warren Burger,Ruth Bader Ginsburg,Antonin Scalia,Clarence Thomas,John Roberts, andBrett Kavanaugh.

TheUnited States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has appellate jurisdiction over cases heard by the D.C. Circuit. These cases can include civil and criminal matters that fall under federal law. Appeals of rulings by the D.C. Circuit are petitioned to theSupreme Court of the United States.

To read opinions published by this court, clickhere.

See also

• The Roberts Court
• Supreme Court of the United States
• United States Supreme Court cases and courts

External links

• U.S. Supreme Court
• U.S. Supreme Court Biography
• Biography from theFederal Judicial Center
• Profile fromOyez
• Profile from the American Bar Association
• Profile from theSupreme Court Historical Society
• U.S. Supreme Court opinions by The Roberts Court

Footnotes

v • e Justices of theSupreme Court of the United States
Active justices	Chief justice:Roberts Associate justices:Alito •Barrett •Gorsuch •Jackson •Kagan •Kavanaugh •Sotomayor •Thomas
Senior justices	Breyer •Kennedy •Souter
Former chief justices	Burger •Chase •Ellsworth •Fuller •Hughes •Jay •Marshall •Rehnquist •Rutledge •Stone •Taft •Taney •Vinson •Waite •Warren • White
Former associate justices	O'Connor •Baldwin •Barbour •Black •Blackmun •Blair •Blatchford •Bradley •Brandeis •Brennan •Brewer •Brown •Burton •Butler •Byrnes •Campbell •Cardozo •Catron •Chase •Clark •Clarke •Clifford •Curtis •Cushing •Daniel •Davis •Day •Douglas •Duvall •Field •Fortas •Frankfurter •Ginsburg •Goldberg •Gray •Grier •Harlan I •Harlan II •Holmes •Hunt •Iredell •H. Jackson •R. Jackson •T. Johnson •W. Johnson, Jr. •J. Lamar •L. Lamar •Livingston •Lurton •Marshall •Matthews •McKenna •McKinley •McLean •McReynolds •Miller •Minton •Moody •Moore •Murphy •Nelson •Paterson •Peckham •Pitney •Powell •Reed •Roberts •W. Rutledge •Sanford •Scalia •Shiras •Stevens •Stewart •Story •Strong •Sutherland •Swayne •Thompson •Todd •Trimble •Van Devanter •Washington •Wayne •B. White •Whittaker •Wilson •Woodbury •Woods

v • e Federal judges who have served theU.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit
Active judges	Chief Judge: Srikanth Srinivasan  •  Karen Henderson  •  J. Michelle Childs  •  Florence Pan  •  Robert Leon Wilkins  •  Patricia Ann Millett  •  Cornelia T. L. Pillard  •  Greg Katsas  •  Neomi Rao  •  Justin Walker (U.S. Court of Appeals)  •  Bradley Garcia
Senior judges	David Sentelle  •  Douglas Ginsburg  •  David Tatel  •  Harry Edwards  •  Arthur Randolph  •
Former judges	William Cranch  •  James Markham Marshall  •  Allen Bowie Duckett  •  Nicholas Battalle Fitzhugh  •  William Kilty  •  James Sewall Morsell  •  Buckner Thruston  •  James Dunlop  •  William Matthew Merrick  •  Richard Henry Alvey  •  Martin Ferdinand Morris  •  Seth Shepard  •  Louis Emory McComas  •  Charles Holland Duell  •  Charles Henry Robb  •  Josiah Alexander Van Orsdel  •  William Hitz  •  Constantine Joseph Smyth  •  Duncan Groner  •  George Ewing Martin  •  James McPherson Proctor (Federal judge)  •  Harold Montelle Stephens  •  Henry Edgerton  •  Justin Miller (D.C. Circuit)  •  Stephen F. Williams  •  Janice Rogers Brown  •  Merrick Garland  •  Thomas Griffith  •  Brett Kavanaugh  •  Laurence Silberman  •  Walter Bastian  •  Edward Tamm  •  Spottswood Robinson  •  Thurman Arnold  •  Bennett Clark  •  Wilbur Miller  •  David Bazelon  •  Robert Bork  •  John Danaher  •  Charles Fahy  •  George MacKinnon  •  Carl McGowan  •  Abner Mikva  •  Elijah Prettyman  •  Roger Robb  •  Kenneth Starr  •  Patricia Wald  •  George Thomas Washington (Federal judge)  •  Malcolm Wilkey  •  George Edward MacKinnon  •  Ketanji Brown Jackson  •  James Wright (Louisiana)  •
Former Chief judges	William Cranch  •  Richard Henry Alvey  •  Seth Shepard  •  Constantine Joseph Smyth  •  Duncan Groner  •  George Ewing Martin  •  Harold Montelle Stephens  •  Henry Edgerton  •  David Sentelle  •  Merrick Garland  •  Douglas Ginsburg  •  Harry Edwards  •  Spottswood Robinson  •  Wilbur Miller  •  David Bazelon  •  Carl McGowan  •  Abner Mikva  •  Elijah Prettyman  •  Patricia Wald  •  James Wright (Louisiana)  •

v • e Federal judges nominated byGeorge W. Bush
2001	Armijo •Bates •Beistline •Blackburn •Bowdre •Bunning •Bury •Caldwell •Camp •Cassell •Cebull •Clement •Clifton •Crane •Eagan •Engelhardt •Friot •Gibbons •Granade •Gregory •Gritzner •Haddon •Hartz •Heaton •Hicks •Howard •Johnson •Jorgenson •Krieger •Land •Leon •Mahan •Martinez •Martone •McConnell •Melloy •Mills •O'Brien •Parker •Payne •Prost •Reeves •Riley •Robinson •Rogers •Royal •Shedd •B. Smith •L. Smith •Walton •Wooten •Zainey
2002	Africk •Anderson •Autrey •Baylson •Cercone •Chesler •Clark •Collyer •Conner •Conti •Corrigan •Davis •Davis •Dorr •England •Ericksen •Fuller •Gardner •Godbey •Griesbach •Hanen •Hovland •Hudson •Jones •Jordan •Kinkeade •Klausner •Kugler •Leighton •Linares •Moses •Marra •Martinez •Martini •Mays •McVerry •Phillips •Raggi •Reade •Rose •Rufe •Savage •Schwab •Smith •St. Eve •Walter •White •Wolfson
2003	Adams •Altonaga •Bea •Benitez •Bennett •Boyle •Brack •Breen •Browning •Burns •Bybee •Callahan •Campbell •Cardone •Carney •Castel •Chertoff •Cohn •Colloton •Conrad •Coogler •Cook •Cooke •Crone •Der-Yeghiayan •Drell •Duffey •Duncan •Erickson •Feuerstein •Figa •Filip •Fischer •Fisher •Flanagan •Floyd •Frost •Gibson •Greer •Gruender •Guirola •Hall •Hardiman •Hayes •Herrera •Hicks •Holmes •Holwell •Hopkins •Houston •Irizarry •Jones •Junell •Karas •Kravitz •Martinez •McKnight •Minaldi •Montalvo •Mosman •Otero •Pickering •Prado •Pratter •Proctor •Quarles •Robart •Roberts •Robinson •Rodgers •Rodriguez •Sabraw •Sanchez •Saylor •Selna •Sharpe •Simon •Springmann •Stanceu •Steele •Stengel •Suko •Sutton •Sykes •Titus •Townes •Tymkovich •Van Antwerpen •Varlan •Wake •Wesley •White •Woodcock • Yeakel
2004	Alvarez •Benton •Boyko •Covington •Diamond •Harwell •Kelley •Schiavelli •Schneider •Starrett •Watson
2005	Alito •Barrett •Batten •Bianco •Brown •Burgess •Conrad •Cox •Crotty •Delgado-Colon •Dever •DuBose •Griffin •Griffith •Johnston •Kendall •Larson •Ludington •Mattice •McKeague •Neilson •Owen •Pryor •Roberts •Sandoval •Schiltz •Seabright •Smoak •Van Tatenhove •Vitaliano •Watkins •Zouhary
2006	Besosa •Bumb •Chagares •Cogan •Gelpi •Golden •Gordon •Gorsuch •Guilford •Hillman •Holmes •Ikuta •D. Jordan •K. Jordan •Kavanaugh •Miller •Moore •Shepherd •Sheridan •Smith •Whitney •Wigenton
2007	Anderson •Aycock •Bailey •Bryant •Davis •DeGiusti •Dow •Elrod •Fairbank •Fischer •Frizzell •Gutierrez •Hall •Hardiman •Haynes •Howard •Jarvey •Jones •Jonker •Kapala •Kays •Laplante •Limbaugh •Lioi •Livingston •Maloney •Mauskopf •Mendez •Miller •Neff •O'Connor •O'Grady •O'Neill •Osteen •Ozerden •Reidinger •Sammartino •Schroeder •Settle •Smith •Snow •Southwick •Suddaby •Sullivan •Thapar •Tinder •Van Bokkelen •Wood •Wright •Wu
2008	Agee •Anello •Arguello •Brimmer •Gardephe •Goldberg •Jones •Kethledge •Lawrence •Matsumoto •Melgren •Murphy •Scriven •Seibel •Slomsky •Trenga •Waddoups •White