Chief Justice defends independence of judiciary in year-end report
SCOTUS NEWS
At the end of an eventful year at The Supreme Court, which included a ruling giving former President Donald Trump broad immunity from criminal prosecution for his conduct while in office, reporting that controversial flags had flown at Justice Samuel Alito’s homes, and an ethics inquiry by Senate Democrats that found more gift trips Justice Clarence Thomas had failed to disclose. Chief Justice John Roberts’ annual report was released on Tuesday evening. (Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States)
At the end of an eventful year at the Supreme Court that included a ruling giving former President Donald Trump broad immunity from criminal prosecution for his conduct while in office, reporting that controversial flags had flown at the homes of Justice Samuel Alito, and an ethics inquiry from Senate Democrats that found more gift trips that Justice Clarence Thomas had failed to disclose, Chief Justice John Roberts’ annual report, released on Tuesday evening, focused on what he sees as the threats to judicial independence.
One of those threats, Roberts wrote, is disinformation from abroad fomented by foreign countries. Roberts did mention the “hostile state actors” who are responsible for disinformation, but the justices will be hearing oral arguments in a challenge next week to a federal statute that would force social media giant TikTok in the United States to shut down unless its parent can sell it by January 19. The chief justice releases his annual report on the federal judiciary on New Year’s Eve. Roberts’s report for 2023 discussed the legal profession, and the role of AI. His 2022 report, in the aftermath of the court’s decision overturning the constitutional right to abortion, stressed the importance of judicial security.
This year’s report comes in the wake of mounting criticism of the court and the justices’ decision in June overturning the longstanding Chevron doctrine, which instructed courts to generally defer to a federal agency’s interpretation of the statutes that it administers. Roberts, quoting his predecessor, Chief Justice William Rehnquist – described the independent federal judiciary of the United States as “one of our crown jewels” and essential to the rule law. He noted that there has been a “significant increase” in threats directed at judges. This requires “significant additional resources” in order to protect them and investigate and prosecute any threats against them. Roberts said that intimidation of judges by “activists groups” and public officials can undermine their independence. Roberts cautioned that critics of the judiciary “should be mindful that intemperance in their statements when it comes to judges may prompt dangerous reactions by others.”
Roberts also cited disinformation as a threat to judicial independence, observing that “distortion of the factual or legal basis for a ruling can undermine confidence in the court system.” The judicial branch, Roberts added, “is peculiarly ill-suited to combat this problem, because judges typically speak only through their decisions.” (The Supreme Court does not make audio of its opinion announcements, at which the justices normally read summaries of their written opinions, available for several months after the opinions are released. Roberts cited the influence of “hostile state actors” in this potential threat. Such actors, he said, could “feed false information into the marketplace of ideas” or “steal information.” Defending the TikTok ban, the Biden administration told the court on Dec. 27 that TikTok “collects vast swaths of data about tens of millions of Americans, which” China “could use for espionage or blackmail,” and that China could “covertly manipulate the platform to advance its geopolitical interests and harm the United States — by, for example, sowing discord and disinformation during a crisis.”
Finally, Roberts concluded, “judicial independence is undermined unless the other branches are firm in their responsibility to enforce the court’s decrees.” Roberts harkened back to the 1950s and 1960s, when federal judges and the Eisenhower and Kennedy administrations stood together when state governors tried to defy court orders to desegregate schools. He said that the United States “avoided standoffs” since then, but “elected officials across the political spectrum” have recently raised the specter open disregard for federal courts rulings. He wrote that these dangerous suggestions, no matter how sporadic they may be, must be rejected. This article was originally published on Howe on the Court.
