SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
john roberts
The Tariff Ruling Shows the Roberts Court Is More Pro-Corporate Than Pro-Trump
The mainstream media, and even much of the progressive media, is misinterpreting the tariff decision as demonstrating the Roberts Court's independence and judicial neutrality. Instead, it demonstrates the court's true masters.
Feb 24, 2026
The US Supreme Court's rejection of President Donald Trump's singular policy on tariffs is a reason for some celebration. During the past year, using the so-called "shadow docket," the Roberts Court had ruled in Trump's favor on an emergency basis 24 out of 28 times.
But the mainstream media, and even much of the progressive media, is misinterpreting the tariff decision as demonstrating the Roberts Court's independence and judicial neutrality.
For example, the New York Times lead article by its chief legal correspondent Adam Lipnick was headlined, "The Supreme Court's Declaration of Independence," and the article argued that SCOTUS's decision "amounted to a declaration of independence." One progressive blogger wrote, "It would be nice—and, in political terms, smart—if the left changes its tune about Roberts in the wake of his courageous stand." An article in the generally liberal Atlantic magazine was headlined, "The Supreme Court Isn't a Rubber Stamp."
But the Roberts Court is not independent. Rather, when there's a conflict between big corporations and Trump, it will side with the corporations.
Most of the media is getting the meaning of the tariffs case wrong.
The plaintiffs challenging the tariffs were represented by the New Civil Liberties Alliance funded by billionaire Charles Koch and former Federalist Society chief Leonard Leo who selected the right-wing Justices. Even The Chamber of Commerce filed an amicus brief opposing the Trump tariffs and asking the Roberts Court to overturn them.
In most cases that don't threaten corporate interests, the Roberts Court sides with Trump. However, as with the tariff decisions, in cases soon to be decided on whether Trump can fire a Federal Reserve governor without cause—which threatens business interests—oral arguments indicate they will probably side with the business interests and rule that the Fed is a special case and the president cannot fire a Fed governor without cause. But they will likely bend themselves into pretzels to hold that Trump can fire without cause the heads of most other agencies like the Consumer Protection Financial Bureau and the National Labor Relations Board, which regulate business and which corporate interests want kneecapped..
Most of the media is getting the meaning of the tariffs case wrong. It does not show that the Roberts Court is independent. Rather, it shows that the Roberts Court is pro-corporate.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Blame the Escalating Gerrymander Wars on Chief Justice John Roberts
Nobody has done more damage to US democracy and voting rights in the 21st Century than this one despicable jurist.
Oct 16, 2025
America is currently at war over partisan gerrymandering. The Republican-controlled Texas legislature has just gerrymandered voting districts to create five more safe Republican US House seats, as demanded by Trump.
Then Missouri Republicans were ordered by Trump to enact a gerrymander to increase the states' disproportionate Republican minority from 6-2 to 7-1 by cutting Democratic-leaning Kansas City voting districts down the middle. Now JD Vance is urging Indiana Republicans to gerrymander the only two remaining Democratic House districts out of existence.
In response, California Governor Gavin Newsom has proposed a ballot measure that would temporarily suspend California's independent redistricting commission until 2030 and let the Democratic legislature redistrict Republicans out of five seats to match what Republicans have done in Texas.
A large majority of voters nationally don't think partisan gerrymandering should be legal. According to a recent YouGov poll, 69% of Americans think partisan gerrymandering should be illegal and only 9% think it should be legal.
Chief Justice John Roberts (and all of his Republican colleagues on the Supreme Court) disagree with this vast majority of Americans. In 2019, Roberts' 5-4 majority opinion in Rucho v Common Cause (joined by the four other Republicans on the Court) held that federal courts do not have the constitutional power to prevent partisan gerrymandering and restored blatantly partisan gerrymanders in North Carolin and Maryland.
Since Roberts' decision, partisan gerrymandering has exploded. According to Michael Li of the Brennan Center, partisan gerrymandering has given Republicans 16 extra seats in the House. Without that, Democrats would have a House majority and Republicans would not be able to pass the so-called "big beautiful bill" which has led to a government shutdown. As the Brennan Center states, "Gerrymandering decided House control."
Roberts' opinion conceded that partisan gerrymandering is “incompatible with democratic institutions” and “leads to results that reasonably seem unjust.” But Roberts then invented a procedural technicality to bar Federal courts from doing anything about it or to uphold the Constitutional principle of "one person, one vote." Roberts claimed that partisan gerrymandering is a so-called "political question" that Federal Courts have no right to question and must be left to the states. Of course, when one party controls the state legislature, they have every incentive to draw voting districts to guarantee they never lose political power, no matter what the view of the voters is. Voters don't get to pick their own legislators. Instead, legislators get to pick their voters. In her dissent—joined by Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Breyer—Justice Kagan wrote:
"For the first time ever, this Court refuses to remedy a constitutional violation because he thinks the task is beyond judicial capabilities. And not just any constitutional violation. The partisan gerrymanders in these cases deprived citizens of the most fundamental of their constitutional rights: the right participate equally in the political process, to join with others to advance their political beliefs, and to choose their political representatives. In so doing, the partisan gerrymanders here debased and dishonored our democracy...enabl[ing] politicians to entrench themselves in office as against voters' preferences...They encouraged a politics of polarization and disfunction."
Is it any wonder that a NY Times/Siena poll taken last week found that only 33% of voters believe that America's political system can still address the nation's problems, while 64% believe the political system is too politically divided to solve the nation's problems?
As former Senate Judiciary Committee counsel Lisa Graves argues in a new book, "[i]n the last twenty years the US Supreme Court has radically curtailed voting rights, undermined anti-corruption measures, encouraged extreme political gerrymandering, restricted the regulation of guns, and obliterated the constitutional right to control one’s reproductive choices. This transformation was orchestrated by a billionaire-backed reactionary political movement, whose interests Chief Justice John Roberts has been all too willing to serve."
Citizens have no power to overturn a US Supreme Court decision. However, California citizens have the ability to equalize Texas Republicans' gerrymander of five House seats. On November 4, they can pass Proposition 50 which lets the State legislature temporarily draw new congressional district maps through 2030, at which point the Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission would resume control of redistricting, and supports nonpartisan redistricting commissions nationwide.
It won't completely block John Roberts' 20-year long project to undermine democracy and judicially enact the increasingly MAGA Republican agenda. (It wouldn't be an exaggeration to call it a "judicial coup".) Indeed, this week SCOTUS heard oral arguments in a case where it appears that Roberts will lead the Republican majority to overturn Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act which protects the right of Black voters to have electoral representation. Such a ruling could likely flip as many as 19 House seats from Democratic to Republican, cementing a Republican House majority for the foreseeable future, regardless of the will of the voters.
Passing Proposition 50 is one thing Californians can do to fight back against Justice Roberts' undemocratic judicial campaign, which has helped enable Trump's authoritarianism. Mail-in ballots have already been sent out so California voters can cast "Yes" votes for Proposition 50 from now until November 4. Beyond that, thanks to John Roberts and his Republican colleagues on SCOTUS, other Blue states will have to be brought into the gerrymander wars and enact their own partisan gerrymanders to balance Republican gerrymanders to the extent possible.
Keep ReadingShow Less
How Will John Roberts Be Remembered? As a Democracy Destroyer
It is unlikely that any Chief Justice in history played more of a role in destroying more of our nation’s democracy rules than this man.
Sep 15, 2025
Chief Justice John Roberts is smart and skilled. He will be remembered, however, as a historic failure.
This is not a claim to make lightly, but his record compels it, because Roberts’ legacy will be defined by two catastrophic roles he played.
First, Roberts has played the lead role in destroying indispensable rules of our democracy.
Second, Roberts has played the lead judicial role in serving as the handmaiden to President Trump’s efforts to turn our democracy into an autocracy. (This historic failure will be detailed next week in Part II).
Roberts’ role in destroying essential rules of our democracy
Chief Justice Roberts has taken the lead in writing a series of opinions that have destroyed essential rules governing our democracy. They deal with:
- The sacred right of every eligible citizen to vote.
- The integrity and honesty of the political system.
- The right of citizens to have an unrigged opportunity to choose their representatives.
- The idea that public officials should not be allowed to sell influence with their office.
- The foundational principle that no person is above the law.
The following opinions, written by Roberts and joined in all but one case only by the Republican-appointed majority on the Court, have done unprecedented harm to our democracy.
Roberts wrote the majority opinion for a 5–4 decision in Shelby County v. Holder (2013). It declared key sections of the landmarkVoting Rights Act of 1965, the most consequential voting rights law ever enacted, to be unconstitutional. The Act was reenacted periodically over decades until the Shelby County decision.
The Roberts opinion unleashed a wave of regressive and discriminatory voting changes by states and local jurisdictions that disadvantaged minority voters and impeded their voting rights and their ability to fully participate in the democratic process.
McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission
Roberts wrote the majority opinion for a 5–4 decision in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission (2014) which struck down the aggregate limit on all contributions by a donor in an election cycle, a provision previously held constitutional by the Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo in 1976.
In Buckley, the Supreme Court had found that unlimited contributions given to support candidates were inherently corrupt. The McCutcheon decision, however, eviscerated the limits on individual contributions to candidates by unleashing billionaires, millionaires, and other big money donors to give unlimited, often huge, contributions to Super PACs to benefit specific candidates.
Roberts wrote the majority opinion for a 5–4 Court decision in Rucho v. Common Cause (2019), in which the Court decided that it could not act on challenges to partisan redistricting plans. The decision claimed that the Court is incapable of establishing standards for determining when partisan maps become unconstitutional, no matter how extreme.
The Rucho decision means that there are no constitutional restrictions on partisan gerrymandering, no matter how rigged the plans are. The result is that politicians get to choose their voters rather than voters choosing their representatives.
Roberts wrote the unanimous opinion in McDonnell v. United States, (2016), which vacated the conviction of former Virginia Governor Robert McDonnell for honest services fraud and extortion. In his opinion, Roberts said that McDonnell’s actions did not constitute “official acts” under the applicable laws, including the bribery law.
In its decision, the Court adopted a narrow, unrealistic construction of the term “official act” to exclude various acts of an officeholder that should be covered, even when those acts are done in direct exchange for gifts or other benefits. For all practical purposes, the Court has left the country without effective bribery laws to prevent public officials from selling their office for financial benefits.
Roberts wrote the opinion for a 6–3 majority in Trump v. United States (2024), which gave Trump presidential criminal immunity. The decision violated a guiding principle of our Founders that no person is above the law. The Roberts opinion placing Trump above the law and also giving him personal control of the Justice Department and FBI can be seen in such outrageous Trump pronouncements as the statement that he has “The right to do anything I want to. I’m the president of the United States,” and “I run the country and the world.”
It is unlikely that any Chief Justice in history played more of a role in destroying more of our nation’s democracy rules than Roberts. And that is how he will be remembered.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular