John Roberts, the right-wing judge who challenges Trump and conservatives with another landmark decision

• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in a new window)
• Click to email a friend (Opens in a new window)

How Do Dreamers Benefit From Court Judgment? 1:11

(CNN) - The president of the United States Supreme Court, John Roberts, saved Obamacare, in 2012, - a measure by which he won the wrath of many Republicans - and this Thursday he kept an Obama-era program that protects young immigrants who came to the United States without the proper documents, a direct rebuke to President Donald Trump.

Both times, Roberts joined the Court's four liberals, as he did last year when he cast the fifth crucial vote to block a citizenship question in the 2020 census, in yet another affront to the president.

"Do you get the impression that the Supreme Court doesn't like me?" Trump tweeted.

• These are the people benefited by the decision of the US Supreme Court about DACA

The conspicuous measures of a generally trustworthy conservative reveal a judge trying to calm disputes that put the nation's high court in tension with the president of the United States.

They also reflect a different pattern than Roberts, who has shown in some flaws a pragmatic and political understanding of a polarized United States.

Roberts, who presided over Trump's impeachment trial and acquittal earlier this year, has shown a keen interest in protecting the integrity of the judiciary and his own reputation. With Thursday's decision in the highly charged immigration dispute, his cold, legal language focused on procedural matters contradicted emotional gambling for nearly 700,000 people.

The chief justice wants officials, especially those in this Trump administration, to abide by the rules.

"We do not decide whether DACA or its termination are sound policies," wrote Roberts, trying to emphasize the limits of the Court's ruling. “The judgment of those decisions is not our concern. We only address whether the agency complied with the procedural requirement that it provide a reasoned explanation of its action. ”

Since his appointment 15 years ago by President George W. Bush, Roberts has held consistent conservative positions in most areas of the law. It narrowed the scope of the Voting Rights Act, making it more difficult to avoid possibly discriminatory electoral procedures before they went into effect.

He also joined the majority of five judges who produced Citizens United's 2010 decision to lift the limits on union and corporate money in elections, and the 2008 decision it gave paved the way for the Second Amendment and declared a right individual to bear arms.

At the moment, that record doesn't matter to Trump or conservatives.

"However, John Roberts again presents himself as a Solomon who will save our institutions from political controversy and accountability," said Republican Senator Tom Cotton. "If the supreme court judge believes your impeachment is so exquisite, I invite you to resign, travel to Iowa, and be elected."

Trump says the decisions mean it is time for new blood in court.

"The recent Supreme Court decisions, not just about DACA, sanctuary cities, the census, and others, only tell you one thing: we need NEW JUDGES on the Supreme Court. If radical left-wing Democrats take power, the Second Amendment, the Right to Life, Secure Borders and ... Religious Liberty, among many other things, will end! ”The president tweeted.

For his part, Roberts is always aware of his own place in history and his long-term strategy is recognized.

"You wonder if you're going to be John Marshall or you're going to be Roger Taney," Roberts once said, referring to the judge known as the founder of the judicial review and the judge who wrote the Dred Scott decision, who said that slaves did not they were citizens, respectively.

"The answer is, of course, you certainly won't be John Marshall," said Roberts. "But you want to avoid the danger of being Roger Taney."

• The US Supreme Court blocks Trump's attempt to end DACA

Break a pattern; reinforce other

As of Thursday, Roberts' court had primarily upheld the Trump White House on immigration.

Since 2017, most higher courts have upheld Trump's efforts to discourage immigrants and refugees from coming to the United States, especially in the 2018 decision that confirms the third iteration of Trump's restrictions on travel to the United States. , which affects certain countries with a Muslim majority.

Earlier this season, the bloc of five right-wing judges, including Roberts, allowed the government to institute a policy that harms green card applicants who asked, even in limited cases, for food stamps and other public benefits.

Still, Thursday's new decision, which favors immigrants, sticks to Roberts' personal plan.

He has portrayed the Court as above politics, despite the many cases that divided 5-4 Republican versus Democratic nominees. Roberts said in reproach to Trump in 2018: "We have no judges for Obama or Trump, Bush or Clinton. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges who do their best to establish equal rights for those who appear before them. ”

Roberts' left-wing votes in high-profile cases, especially two involving initiatives with President Barack Obama's signature, make their points to some extent.

Roberts has undoubtedly voted many times against liberal policies, which involve the environment, reproductive rights, racial remedies, and the separation of Church and State. And there is no sign that Roberts, who began his legal career in Washington in the Reagan administration, has abandoned his fundamental conservative attitudes.

He never lunges left, rather his moves to line up with the four liberals on the court almost always come with limits or warnings.

In 2012, Roberts saved the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (known as Obamacare) by interpreting it as part of the taxing power of Congress, but he also limited himself to the authority of Congress to regulate interstate commerce. And while defending the individual insurance requirement at the core of the Act, she voted to reduce the expansion of Medicaid to help poor people.

In last year's census dispute, he declared that the Secretary of Commerce had full authority to add the citizenship question that the plaintiffs believed would reduce the responses of Hispanics and new immigrants. But Roberts, accompanied by the four liberal judges, discovered that in this situation Secretary Wilbur Ross had invented a justification that he upheld for the question of citizenship. Given the deadline to distribute the census, the practical result was to eliminate the idea of ​​a citizenship question.

With DACA, the pattern continues.

With a decision focused on the complexities of the federal procedure, Roberts has allowed the administration to try again to rescind DACA. However, such an effort would likely take months and would be accompanied by further protracted litigation. That means that no real change is likely to occur until after the presidential election.

The conservative response

At every turn, Trump has been unable to view the federal judiciary, especially judges installed before he became president, as independent.

"Sorry, Judge John Roberts, but there are 'Obama judges', and they have a very different point of view than the people in charge of the security of our country," the president replied to Roberts, in 2018.

Despite Trump's complaints, this Supreme Court, however, has sided with conservatives on a multitude of issues, including religion, gun regulation, and reproductive rights. This court is still dominated by right-wing interests.

This Thursday, dissident judge Clarence Thomas wrote that Roberts' modest move was actually something else.

"Today's decision must be recognized for what it is: an effort to avoid a politically controversial but legally correct decision," said Thomas, appointed by President George HW Bush.

"The Tribunal could have made clear that the solution (the complainants) must come from the Legislative Branch ... In doing so, it has given the green light for future political battles to be waged in this Tribunal instead of where they legitimately belong to the political branches. Such shyness abandons the Court's duty to apply the law in accordance with neutral principles, and the ripple effects of the majority's error will be felt throughout our system of self-government. ”

The four judges who protested Roberts' decision at 2012 Obamacare, including Thomas, similarly argued that Roberts was hiding an important decision in legal jargon.

"The Tribunal considers its tense legal interpretation to be judicial modesty," said the dissenting opinion led by the late Judge Antonin Scalia. "It is not."

DACAJohn Roberts