John Roberts

For other people named the Chief Justice of the United States, see the Chief Justice of the United States (disambiguation).

John Glover Roberts, Jr.
17th Chief Justice of the United States
Incumbent
Assumed office September 29 2005
Nominated by	George W. Bush
Preceded by	William Rehnquist
Personal details
Spouse	Jane Sullivan Roberts
Alma mater	Harvard University

John Glover Roberts, Jr. (born January 27 1955) is the seventeenth and current Chief Justice of the United States. Before joining the Supreme Court on September 29, 2005, Roberts was a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Previously, he spent 14 years in private law practice and held positions in Republican administrations in the U.S. Department of Justice and Office of the White House Counsel.

Early years

Roberts was born in Buffalo, New York, on January 27 1955, son of John Glover ("Jack") Roberts and Rosemary Podrasky. All of his maternal great-grandparents were from Czechoslovakia. His father was an executive with Bethlehem Steel. When Roberts was in second grade, his family moved to the beachside town of Long Beach, Indiana. He grew up in a Roman Catholic home along with three sisters: Kathy, Peggy, and Barbara.

Roberts attended Notre Dame Elementary, a Catholic grade school in Long Beach, and then La Lumiere School, a Catholic boarding school in LaPorte, Indiana and was an excellent student and athlete. He studied six years of Latin and some French, and was known for his devotion to his studies. He was also captain of his football team (he later described himself as a "slow-footed linebacker"), and also was a Regional Champion in wrestling. He also participated in choir and drama, co-edited the school newspaper, and served on the athletic council and the Executive Committee of the Student Council.

File:BUSHROBERTS.jpg

President George W. Bush talks with Theodore Cardinal McCarrick as Chief Justice Roberts looks on at the Annual Red Mass.

Education and memberships

Roberts graduated first in his high school class as a National Merit Scholar. Following high school, Roberts attended Sacred Heart University, then entered Harvard College as a sophomore. He initially planned to become a history professor. Roberts spent his summers working in a steel mill to help pay for college. While a student at Harvard, he received the William Scott Ferguson award for his essay, Marxism and Bolshevism: Theory and Practice. He received a Bachelor's Degree in history summa cum laude and with Phi Beta Kappa honors in 1976. Roberts then attended Harvard Law School, where he served as managing editor of the Harvard Law Review and graduated magna cum laude in 1979.

Roberts is currently a member of the American Academy of Appellate Lawyers, the American Law Institute, the Edward Coke Appellate American Inn of Court and the National Legal Center for the Public Interest. He serves on the Federal Appellate Rules Advisory Committee.

Roberts is married to Jane Sullivan Roberts, a lawyer, former legal counsel for Feminists for Life, and current partner at Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP. They live in the Washington, DC suburb of Chevy Chase, Maryland, in an upscale neighborhood. John Roberts is a practicing Roman Catholic. He and his family worship at Church of the Little Flower. This parish is one attended by many Catholic officials in all three branches of government and on all ends of the political spectrum. The Roberts family adopted the first of two unrelated Irish infants in 2000: Josephine ("Josie") and later, Jack Roberts. Jack's dancing during Bush's White House introduction of his father brought the four-year-old international media attention and praise from the President as "a fellow who's comfortable with the cameras." In an address at the University of Miami, Roberts stated, "People think Jack was dancing — he was not dancing, he was being Spider-man, shooting the webs off."

Personal finances

According to a 16-page financial disclosure form Roberts submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee prior to his Supreme Court confirmation hearings, his personal fortune was more than $6 million, including $1.6 million in stock holdings. At the time Roberts left private practice to join the DC Circuit Court of Appeals in 2003, he took a pay cut from $1 million a year to $171,800; as Chief Justice his salary is $212,100. The Roberts' family home, a two-story white colonial, was recently assessed at $891,000, according to Montgomery County, Maryland property tax records. Roberts also holds a one-eighth interest in a cottage in Knocklong, his wife's ancestral village in County Limerick.

Health

On July 30 2007 Roberts was taken to the hospital following a fall at his summer home. The fall was caused by an idiopathic seizure similar to one he suffered in 1993.

Private practice

After graduating from law school, Roberts served as a law clerk for Judge Henry Friendly on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals for one year. From 1980 to 1981, he clerked for then-Associate Justice William Rehnquist on the United States Supreme Court. From 1981 to 1982, he served in the Reagan administration as a Special Assistant to U.S. Attorney General William French Smith. From 1982 to 1986, Roberts served as Associate Counsel to the President under White House Counsel Fred Fielding.

Roberts entered private law practice in 1986 as an associate at the Washington, D.C.-based law firm of Hogan & Hartson, but left to serve in the first Bush Administration as Principal Deputy Solicitor General from 1989 to 1993. During this time, Roberts argued 39 cases for the government before the Supreme Court, prevailing in 25 of them. He represented 18 states in United States v. Microsoft.

In 1992, George H. W. Bush nominated Roberts to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, but no Senate vote was held, and Roberts' nomination expired when Bush left office after losing the 1992 presidential election. Roberts returned to Hogan & Hartson as a partner, and became the head of the firm's appellate practice, in addition to serving as an adjunct faculty member at the Georgetown University Law Center. In his capacity as head of Hogan & Hartson's appellate practice, Roberts argued a total of thirty-nine cases before the Supreme Court, including:

Case	Argued	Decided	Represented
First Options v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938	March 22 1995	May 22 1995	Respondent
Adams v. Robertson, 520 U.S. 83	January 14 1997	March 3 1997	Respondent
Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government, 522 U.S. 520	December 10 1997	February 25 1998	Petitioner
Feltner v. Columbia Pictures Television, Inc., 523 U.S. 340	January 21 1998	March 31 1998	Petitioner
National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Smith, 525 U.S. 459	January 20 1999	February 23 1999	Petitioner
Rice v. Cayetano, 528 U.S. 495	October 6 1999	February 23 2000	Respondent
Eastern Associated Coal Corp. v. Mine Workers, 531 U.S. 57	October 2 2000	November 28 2000	Petitioner
TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc., 532 U.S. 23	November 29 2000	March 20 2001	Petitioner
Toyota Motor Manufacturing v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184	November 7 2001	January 8 2002	Petitioner
Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 535 U.S. 302	January 7 2002	April 23 2002	Respondent
Rush Prudential HMO, Inc. v. Moran, 536 U.S. 355	January 16 2002	June 20 2002	Petitioner
Gonzaga University v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273	April 24 2002	June 20 2002	Petitioner
Barnhart v. Peabody Coal Co., 537 U.S. 149	October 8 2002	January 15 2003	Respondent
Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84	November 13 2002	March 5 2003	Petitioner

Jurisprudence

During Judiciary Committee hearings on his nomination to the circuit court, Roberts testified about his views on jurisprudence.

The Commerce Clause

File:Nancy Reagan John Roberts.jpg

Roberts walks with Former First Lady Nancy Reagan at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in March of 2006.

"Starting with McCulloch v. Maryland, Chief Justice John Marshall gave a very broad and expansive reading to the powers of the Federal Government and explained that—and I don't remember the exact quote—but if the ends be legitimate, then any means chosen to achieve them are within the power of the Federal Government, and cases interpreting that, throughout the years, have come down. Certainly, by the time Lopez was decided, many of us had learned in law school that it was just sort of a formality to say that interstate commerce was affected and that cases weren't going to be thrown out that way. Lopez certainly breathed new life into the Commerce Clause.

"I think it remains to be seen, in subsequent decisions, how rigorous a showing, and in many cases, it is just a showing. It's not a question of an abstract fact, does this affect interstate commerce or not, but has this body, the Congress, demonstrated the impact on interstate commerce that drove them to legislate? That's a very important factor. It wasn't present in Lopez at all. I think the members of Congress had heard the same thing I had heard in law school, that this is unimportant—and they hadn't gone through the process of establishing a record in that case."

Federalism

"Simply because you have a problem that needs addressing, it's not necessarily the case that Federal legislation is the best way to address it…. The constitutional limitation doesn't turn on whether it's a good idea. There is not a 'good idea' clause in the Constitution. It can be a bad idea, but certainly still satisfy the constitutional requirements."

Applying precedent

"The Supreme Court has, throughout its history, on many occasions described the deference that is due to legislative judgments. Justice Holmes described assessing the constitutionality of an act of Congress as the gravest duty that the Supreme Court is called upon to perform.... It's a principle that is easily stated and needs to be observed in practice, as well as in theory.

"Now, the Court, of course, has the obligation, and has been recognized since Marbury v. Madison, to assess the constitutionality of acts of Congress, and when those acts are challenged, it is the obligation of the Court to say what the law is. The determination of when deference to legislative policy judgments goes too far and becomes abdication of the judicial responsibility, and when scrutiny of those judgments goes too far on the part of the judges and becomes what I think is properly called judicial activism, that is certainly the central dilemma of having an unelected, as you describe it correctly, undemocratic judiciary in a democratic republic."

In referring to Brown v. Board that overturned school segregation: "the Court in that case, of course, overruled a prior decision. I don't think that constitutes judicial activism because obviously if the decision is wrong, it should be overruled. That's not activism. That's applying the law correctly."

Roe v. Wade

In his Senate testimony, Roberts acknowledged that, while sitting on the Appellate Court, he would have an obligation to respect precedents established by the Supreme Court, including the controversial decision invalidating many restrictions on the right to an abortion. He stated: "Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land.... There is nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent, as well as Casey." Following the traditional reticence of nominees to indicate which way they might vote on an issue likely to come before the high court, he did not explicitly say whether he would vote to overturn either.

See John Roberts Supreme Court nomination and hearings for speculation about Roberts's current views, concerns about these views raised in the hearings, and the potential impact they might have on his actions in the Supreme Court.

Free speech

Roberts espouses a largely constitutionalist approach to free speech protection in the First Amendment. He authored the 2007 student free speech case Morse v. Frederick, ruling that a student in a public school-sponsored activity does not have the right to advocate drug use on the basis that the right to free speech does not invariably prevent the exercise of school discipline.

Opinions as court of appeals judge

During his two year tenure on the D.C. Circuit, Roberts authored 49 opinions (which elicited only two dissents from other judges). During that same time frame, he authored only three dissenting opinions of his own. Because of this short record, it is difficult to ascertain from his appellate decisions a general approach to the Constitution, and he has not publicly stated on what he considers the best methods of constitutional and statutory interpretation. He has even said that "I do not think beginning with an all-encompassing approach to constitutional interpretation is the best way to faithfully construe the document." Cass Sunstein, a law professor at the University of Chicago argued at the time of his confirmation as Chief Justice that, in general, Roberts appears to be a judicial minimalist, emphasizing precedent, as opposed to an originalism-oriented or rights-focused jurist. "Roberts's opinions thus far [as a court of appeals judge] are careful, lawyerly and narrow. They avoid broad pronouncements. They do not try to reorient the law."

His past rulings as a court of appeals judge included the following issues:

Fourth and Fifth Amendments

The D.C. Circuit case Hedgepeth v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, 386 F.3d 1148, involved a twelve-year-old girl who was, according to the Washington Post, asked if she had any drugs in her possession, searched for drugs, taken into custody, handcuffed, driven to police headquarters, booked and fingerprinted because she violated a publicly-advertised zero tolerance "no eating" policy in a Washington D.C. metro station by eating a single french fry. Roberts wrote for a 3-0 panel affirming a district court decision that dismissed the girl's complaint, which was predicated on the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, specifically the claim that an adult would have only received a citation for the same offense, while children must be detained until parents are notified.

Roberts began his opinion by noting, "No one is very happy about the events that led to this litigation," and pointing out that the policies under which the girl was apprehended had since been changed. Because age discrimination is allowed under previous jurisprudence if there is any rational basis for it, only weak state interests were required to justify the policy. "Because parents and guardians play an essential role in that rehabilitative process, it is reasonable for the District to seek to ensure their participation, and the method chosen — detention until the parent is notified and retrieves the child — certainly does that, in a way issuing a citation might not." Roberts concluded that the age discrimination and detention in this case were constitutional, noting that "the question before us... is not whether these policies were a bad idea, but whether they violated the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution.", language reminiscent of Justice Potter Stewart's dissent in Griswold v. Connecticut, in which Justice Stewart wrote, "We are not asked in this case to say whether we think this law is unwise, or even asinine. We are asked to hold that it violates the United States Constitution. And that, I cannot do."

Military tribunals

In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, Roberts was part of a unanimous Circuit panel overturning the district court ruling and upholding military tribunals set up by the Bush Administration for trying terrorism suspects known as enemy combatants. Circuit Judge A. Raymond Randolph, writing for the court, ruled that Hamdan, a driver for al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, could be tried by a military court because:

1. the military commission had the approval of the United States Congress;
2. the Third Geneva Convention is a treaty between nations and as such it does not confer individual rights and remedies enforceable in U.S. courts;
3. even if the Convention could be enforced in U.S. courts, it would not be of assistance to Hamdan at the time because, for a conflict such as the war against Al-Qaeda (considered by the court as a separate war from that against Afghanistan itself) that is not between two countries, it guarantees only a certain standard of judicial procedure without speaking to the jurisdiction in which the prisoner must be tried.

The court held open the possibility of judicial review of the results of the military commission after the current proceedings have ended. This decision was overturned on June 29 2006 by the Supreme Court in a 5-3 decision, with Roberts not participating due to his prior ruling as a circuit judge.

Environmental regulation

On the U.S. Court of Appeals, Roberts wrote a dissenting opinion regarding Rancho Viejo, LLC v. Norton, 323 F.3d 1062, a case involving the protection of a rare California toad under the Endangered Species Act. When the court denied a rehearing en banc, 334 F.3d 1158 (D.C. Cir. 2003), Roberts dissented, arguing that the original opinion was wrongly decided because he found it inconsistent with United States v. Lopez and United States v. Morrison in that it focused on the effects of the regulation, rather than the taking of the toads themselves, on interstate commerce. In Roberts's view, the Commerce Clause of the Constitution did not permit the government to regulate activity affecting what he called "a hapless toad" that "for reasons of its own, lives its entire life in California." He said that reviewing the case could allow the court "alternative grounds for sustaining application of the Act that may be more consistent with Supreme Court precedent."

U.S. Supreme Court

Nomination and confirmation

Main article: John Roberts Supreme Court nomination and hearings

On July 19 2005, President Bush nominated Roberts to the U.S. Supreme Court to fill a vacancy that would be left by the announced retirement of Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Roberts was the first Supreme Court nominee since Stephen Breyer in 1994. Bush announced Roberts' nomination in a live, nationwide television broadcast from the East Room of the White House at 9 pm Eastern Daylight Time.

John Roberts appears in the background, while President Bush is announcing his nomination for the position of Chief Justice.

Following the September 3 2005 death of Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, Bush withdrew Roberts' nomination as O'Connor's successor, and on September 6, announced Roberts' new nomination to the position of Chief Justice. Bush asked the Senate to expedite Roberts' confirmation hearings in order to fill the vacancy by the beginning of the Supreme Court's session in early October.

On September 22 the Senate Judiciary Committee approved Roberts' nomination by a vote of 13-5, with Senators Ted Kennedy, Richard Durbin, Charles Schumer, Joe Biden and Dianne Feinstein the dissenting votes. Roberts was confirmed by the full Senate on September 29, passing by a margin of 78-22. All Republicans and the lone Independent voted for Roberts; the Democrats split evenly, 22 for and 22 against. Roberts was confirmed by what was, historically, a narrow margin for a Supreme Court Justice. This reflects the increasing politicization and partisanship of Supreme Court nominees, though this margin was greater than the 1986 65-33 vote confirming Roberts' predecessor, William Rehnquist, as Chief Justice, and far greater than the 52-48 vote confirming Clarence Thomas as Associate Justice in 1991.

The Roberts Court

File:Robertsoath.jpg

Roberts is sworn in as Chief Justice by Justice John Paul Stevens in the East Room of the White House, September 29 2005.

On September 29, just hours after his Senate confirmation, Roberts took the Constitutional oath of office, which was administered by senior Associate Justice John Paul Stevens at the White House. He took the judicial oath provided for by the Judiciary Act of 1789 on September 29 2005 at the United States Supreme Court building, prior to the first oral arguments of the 2005 term. At 50, Roberts is the youngest member of the Court, and the third-youngest person to have ever become Chief Justice (John Jay was appointed at age 44 in 1789 while John Marshall was appointed at age 45 in 1801). However, many Associate Justices, such as Clarence Thomas (appointed at age 43) and William O. Douglas (appointed at age 41 in 1939), have joined the Court at a younger age than Roberts.

Roberts presided over his first oral arguments on October 3 2005, when the Court began its 2005-2006 session. Ending a week's worth of idle speculation, Roberts opted to wear a plain black robe on his first day, dispensing with the gold sleeve-bars added to the Chief Justice's robes by his late predecessor.

The Roberts Court decided the first case heard before it, IBP, Inc. v. Alvarez, on November 8, 2005. Justice Stevens wrote the opinion for an undivided court, upholding the informal tradition that a new "Chief's" first case be decided unanimously.

On January 17 2006, Roberts dissented along with Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas in Gonzales v. Oregon, which held that the Controlled Substances Act does not allow the United States Attorney General to prohibit physicians from prescribing drugs for the assisted suicide of the terminally ill as permitted by an Oregon law. However, the point of contention in this case was largely one of statutory interpretation, not federalism.

On March 6 2006, Roberts wrote the unanimous decision in Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights that colleges that accept federal money must allow military recruiters on campus, despite university objections to the Clinton Administration-initiated "Don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays in the military.

Roberts wrote his first dissent in the case Georgia v. Randolph, decided March 22 2006. The majority's decision prohibited police from searching a home if, as in this case, both occupants are present but one occupant objected while another consented. Roberts' dissent criticized the majority opinion as inconsistent with prior caselaw and for basing its reasoning in part on its perception of social custom.

On the Supreme Court, Roberts has indicated he supports some abortion restrictions but has not committed to overturn Roe vs Wade. On April 18 2007, the Supreme Court handed down a decision upholding the constitutionality of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act in the case of Gonzales v. Carhart. Roberts voted to uphold the Partial Birth Abortion Act along with four other justices. He assigned writing of the opinion to Justice Anthony Kennedy. Kennedy wrote for the five-justice majority that Congress was within its power to generally ban the procedure, although the Court left the door open for as-applied challenges.

Kennedy's opinion did not reach the question whether the Court's prior decisions in Roe v. Wade, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, and Stenberg v. Carhart were valid, but stated that this opinion did not conflict with those opinions. Joining the majority was Justice Samuel Alito. Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Antonin Scalia, filed a concurring opinion, contending that the Court's prior decisions in Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey should be reversed, and also noting that the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act may exceed the powers of Congress under the Commerce Clause. Roberts, along with Alito, refused to sign on to that opinion. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter, John Paul Stevens and Stephen Breyer dissented, contending that the ruling ignored Supreme Court abortion precedent.

Although Roberts has often sided with Scalia and Thomas, Roberts was the tie-breaking vote (if a tie vote occurs, the lower court decision stands) in Jones v. Flowers. In Jones, Roberts sided with the liberal block of the court determining that before a home is seized and sold in a tax-forfeiture sale, due diligence must be demonstrated and proper notification needs to be sent to the owners. Dissenting were Anthony Kennedy along with Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Samuel Alito did not participate while Roberts' ruling was joined by David Souter, Stephen Breyer, John Paul Stevens, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

See also

• United States Supreme Court cases during the Roberts Court

Bibliography of articles by John G. Roberts Jr.

The University of Michigan Law Library (External Links, below) has compiled fulltext links to these articles and a number of briefs and arguments.

• Developments in the Law – Zoning, "The Takings Clause," 91 Harv. L. Rev. 1462 (1978). (Section III of a longer article beginning on p. 1427)
• Comment, "Contract Clause – Legislative Alteration of Private Pension Agreements: Allied Structural Steel Co. v. Spannaus," 92 Harv. L. Rev. 86 (1978). (Subsection C of a longer article beginning on p. 57)
• New Rules and Old Pose Stumbling Blocks in High Court Cases, The Legal Times, February 26 1990, co-authored with E. Barrett Prettyman, Jr.
• Article III Limits on Statutory Standing, 42 Duke L. J. 1219 (1992-1993).
• Riding the Coattails of the Solicitor General, The Legal Times, March 29 1993.
• The New Solicitor General and the Power of the Amicus, The Wall Street Journal, May 5 1993.
• The 1992-1993 Supreme Court, Public Interest Law Review 107 (1994).
• Forfeitures: Does Innocence Matter?, New Jersey Law Journal, October 9 1995.
• Thoughts on Presenting an Effective Oral Argument, School Law in Review (1997). Link
• The Bush Panel, 2003 BYU L. Rev. 62 (2003). (Part of a tribute to Rex. E. Lee beginning on p. 1. "The Bush Panel" contains a speech by Roberts.)
• Oral Advocacy and the Re-emergence of a Supreme Court Bar, 30 J. Supr. Ct. Hist. 68 (2005).
• What Makes the D.C. Circuit Different: A Historical View, 92 Va. L. Rev. (forthcoming).
• A Tribute to Chief Justice Rehnquist, 119 Harv. L. Rev. 1 (2005)

References

News articles

• "Roberts Listed in Federalist Society '97-98 Directory". Washington Post. July 25 2005. [3]
• "Appellate judge Roberts is Bush high-court pick." MSNBC. July 19 2005. [4]
• Argetsinger, Amy, and Jo Becker. "The nominee as a young pragmatist: under Reagan, Roberts tackled tough issues." Washington Post. July 22 2005. [5]
• Barbash, Fred, et al: "Bush to nominate Judge John G. Roberts Jr." Washington Post. July 19 2005. [6]
• Becker, Jo, and R. Jeffrey Smith. "Record of accomplishment—and some contradictions." Washington Post. July 20 2005. [7]
• Bumuller, Elisabeth, and David Stout: "President chooses conservative judge as nominee to court." New York Times. July 19 2005. [8]
• "Bush: Meeting with Roberts during recount wasn't political." Associated Press. July 23 2005. [9]
• Entous, Adam. "Bush picks conservative Roberts for Supreme Court." Reuters. July 19 2005. [10]
• Kallestad, Brent. "Roberts helped counsel Jeb Bush." Associated Press. July 21 2005. [11]
• Lane, Charles. "Federalist affiliation misstated: Roberts does not belong to group." Washington Post. July 21 2005. [12]
• Lane, Charles. "Short record as judge is under a microscope." Washington Post. July 21 2005. [13]
• Groppe, Maureen, and John Tuohy. "If you ask John where he's from, he says Indiana." Indianapolis Star. July 20 2005. [14]
• McFeatters, Ann. "John G. Roberts Jr. is Bush choice for Supreme Court." Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. July 19 2005. [15]
• Riechmann, Deb. "Federal judge Roberts is Bush's choice." Associated Press. July 20 2005. [16]
• "Roberts: A smart, self-effacing 'Eagle Scout'." Associated Press. July 20 2005. [17]
• "Who Is John G. Roberts Jr.?" ABC News. July 19 2005. [18]

Government/official biographies

• "President announces Judge John Roberts as Supreme Court nominee." Office of the Press Secretary, Executive Office of the President. [19]
• "Roberts, John G., Jr." Federal Judicial Center. [20]
• "John G. Roberts biography." Office of Legal Policy, U.S. Department of Justice. [21]
• "Biographical Sketches of the Judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit." United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. [22]
• John G. Roberts Questionnaire for Appeals Court Confirmation Hearing (p. 297-339) and responses to Questions from Various Senators (p. 443-461) [23] (large PDF file)

Other

• Coffin, Shannen W. "Meet John Roberts: The President Makes the Best Choice." National Review Online. July 19 2005. [24]
• "Former Hogan & Hartson partner nominated for the U.S. Supreme Court." Hogan & Hartson, LLP. July 20 2005. [25]
• Goldman, Jerry. "John G. Roberts, Jr." Oyez. [26]
• "John G. Roberts, Jr. Fact Sheet" La Lumiere School. [27]
• "John G. Roberts federal campaign contributions." Newsmeat.com. July 19 2005. [28]
• "John G. Roberts Jr." DKosopedia. July 19 2005. [29]
• "Progress for America: Support for the Confirmation of John G. Roberts" [30]
• "Report of the Alliance for Justice: Opposition to the Confirmation of John G. Roberts to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit." Alliance for Justice. [31] (PDF file)

External links

• Judge Roberts's Published Opinions in a searchable database
• Search and browse the transcripts from Judge Roberts's confirmation hearing
• Template:Nndb name
• Chief Justice John Roberts at About.com
• Transcript of Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the nomination of John Roberts to the D.C. circuit (Roberts Q&A on pages 17-79) plain text available here
• FindLaw Lawyer Profile
• List of Circuit Judge Roberts's opinions for the DC Circuit
• University of Michigan Law Library fulltext links
• Federalist Society
• A summary of media-related cases handled by Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. from The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, July 21 2005
• Experts Analyze Supreme Court Nominee John Roberts's Legal Record
• Profile of the Nominee - The Washington Post
• A Senate Hearing Primer - The New York Times
• Video and Transcripts From the Roberts Confirmation Hearings - The New York Times
• SCOTUSblog
• Supreme Court Nomination Blog
• Senate Vote on the Roberts nomination
• List of Chief Justices, including John Roberts, Jr.
• On first day, Roberts sets no-nonsense tone - The Boston Globe

Template:Incumbent succession box

Template:Persondata