The defining feature of iconic Supreme Court decisions is that they are timeless. Each time I read them, they teach me new insights and provide new lessons about constitutional law. Each semester, I prepare a case like this: Marbury or McCullochlearn something new.
But Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion is the exact opposite. It’s best to read it once. Once you’ve read it, you’ll understand that Roberts’ analysis is: Best Answer (to use Roper Bright Framing), but only There is no possible answer, since the opposite position is unfounded. This is the first reading.
But when you read Roberts’ decisions a second, third, fourth time, all of the glitz and pretense starts to peel away. You realize that John Roberts has never been, and still is, a skilled lawyer. The client is what John Roberts himself thinks the Supreme Court should be. The debate about “institutionalism” has always been introspective. What does John Roberts himself think the Supreme Court should be as an institution?
I read it like this Loper BrightWhen I first read it, I was very impressed with the rigor of the analysis. He did it all in about 30 pages. No easy feat! And he convinced everyone on the Supreme Court. Even as Justice Barrett urged him to “xorize,” Chevron It seems to have been ruled out by the Chief’s strong opinion. (I need to think a bit more about why Barrett didn’t write a separate article. Loper Bright “Participation” seems to undermine some of her more recent opinions.
However, I Loper Bright There has been a growing majority opinion for a few days now, but the wheels are starting to come off.
But Roberts writes beautifully nonetheless. This sentence is one of my favorites: “To people on land, ‘F/V’ is simply the name of a fishing boat.”
