New York Native SCOTUS Chief Justice John Roberts Discusses Law, Constitution, Civics Education At Georgetown University

From the below interview, possibly the most important question and answer is the following, where a student asks what is the most important thing for students to learn about.  The answer is not surprising, but it is disturbing to realize that civics courses, or Constitutional Law classes, in high schools and other levels of education are often the first to be cut with budget trimming.  However, without this education, generations of people are being raised knowing nothing about the government which they live under, how the court system works, what checks and balances are and why they are necessary, and what freedoms are actually guaranteed and how important that is.  The key to a functioning democracy is a participatory electorate who is involved in civic life (i.e. politics), and who has an understanding of why they vote and what they are voting for.  As other authors have discussed regarding the importance of voting, without this understanding, democracy will not last, because it cannot stand on its own.  A democratic republic represents the people, so the people need to know what that means.  This is what was said:

Readers can learn more about some of the recent decisions by the conservative majority court that have made a big impact in the lives of many, some have even directly led to the deaths of individuals. 

GL: So the next advice question and we have two students who asked this question, so Adrien Jackson and Giovanni Woo are you here? Hi please stand up so you can be recognized. Hi so we endeavor to teach our students about the rule of law, its fundamental role in our constitutional democracy, its complex operations, and at times its fragility, and the class of 2025 now heads off to practice in myriad settings from civil rights litigation to private equity transactions to cyber security regulation. The question is: what steps can our newly admitted lawyers take to strengthen the rule of law?

CJ: Well I think I will take my lead from the  person I was first nominated to replace, Justice O’Connor, and one of my current colleagues Justice Sotomayor, who are very active in something called  Civics, and I think you’re talking about strengthening the rule of law. 

One area where it’s most endangered is with young people. I mean that they they’re focused on high school and and eighth grade and things like that, and how many people have really no understanding of what the role of courts are, what the different branches have to do really, even the notion of what law is and what a constitution is, and there are always opportunities wherever you are, and you know, give Justice Sotomayor a call, and she’ll tell you where they are if you don’t know in your particular area. Now don’t do that. Just call call her her office, and you can really learn how to be helpful, whether it’s spending an afternoon with, you know, the seventh grade class and teaching them how law works or many many other things.

So there are a lot of opportunities, and I do think you kind of have to start as early as you possibly can, because otherwise it doesn’t become part of their understanding of government. You know when they’re cutting classes because they want to add all sorts of other stuff, I mean certainly civics is the first thing that goes, you know, and I think that’s really too bad, and we’re developing a situation where the whole group of young people is growing up having no real sense about how our system of justice works…

Readers can learn more about some of the recent decisions by the conservative majority court that have made a big impact in the lives of many, some have even directly led to the deaths of individuals.  

The complete conversation:

Advertisement

GU: Well good afternoon graduates to be. Welcome to our 2025 Georgetown Law Center lecture, and you know in a few days you’re going to be graduating, and you’ll be embarking on the next stage in your legal careers, and we started a tradition a few years ago of having a leading member of the venture bar come and talk to you about their experience and offer some advice, and this is a particularly meaningful lecture for me and it’s actually a conversation not a lecture.

But this is particularly meaningful for me because this is my last time as dean and I am so delighted and so honored that our our speaker this year is the honorable Chief Justice of the United States John G Roberts Jr. Please join me in welcoming Chief Justice

CJ: Thank you, thank you

GL: So before our conversation let me tell you a little bit about Chief Justice Roberts. John G Roberts Jr was born in Buffalo New York, and we were just talking, you were there until you were the age of nine?

CJ: Right,right

GL: And he received a BA from Harvard College in 1976 and a JD from Harvard Law School in 1979, and actually one of the things we were talking before that I had not known was that after high school and during a college semester you worked in the steel mills.

CJ: Right united Steel Workers of America job class six electrical helper

GL:Do you have a union card?

CJ: I had my union card. Absolutely, the electrical helper carried around the electrician’s toolbox, and every now and then when he wanted a little fun he would tell you to tighten the screw that was still alive. You tighten it and get a nice shock, and it never got tired

GL: And so then you went to Harvard Law School, and I asked you, you know, when you decided to become a lawyer

CJ: In about the second year of law school, which was true, I hadn’t gone to law school because I wanted to be a lawyer. I wanted to be a historian, and it’s a true story. Coming out of college, getting close to it, I was being driven from Logan Airport back to school, and started talking with the cab driver and he said “Well what do you do?” And I said “I’m a history major at Harvard.” He said “I was a history major at Harvard.” And I decided, nothing against cab drivers, but then law school seemed like a you know reasonable alternative. And when I got there I grew to like it so that’s

GL: And you you were the managing editor of the Harvard Law Review, you graduated Magna Claude, and then your first job was you clerked for Judge Henry Friendley

CJ:Yeah on the second circuit

GL: What was that like?

CJ: Well, to be honest, it was transformational. At that time in the late 70s, law schools saw the law profession I think as a pretty cynical endeavor. I don’t think there were many people who viewed the law as something with intrinsic value. It was instructional, and as I said people had a generally cynical view of it, and I was frankly wondering if I’d made a good choice, you know, not having to want to go there in the first place. And then to spend a year with this remarkable man who the one thing that was clear is that he looked at the law as something more than just instructional.  I don’t want to overplay things but sort of something with some beautiful interaction as a system of ordering, and then was just brilliant at it. I mean after arguments he would sit down in his office with two little legal pads on either side. He’d start writing the opinion, and you know footnotes or other questions on the other side of the opinion, and then at the end of that – sometimes it took half an hour sometimes it took you know a day and a half – give it to the secretary, and she would type it up and then give it to one of the law clerks, and I’d look at it. It was just, you know, again, I don’t want to exaggerate, but it was just poetry, and everything sort of fit together, and you could understand how it how it worked. And the last thing I wanted to do was change it, but he said, no, do what you can with this or that, and look at this point and all. So it really changed my whole view of of the law. So that was important. I mean I’ve always thought Henry Friendley was someone who thought that there were best answers to even the toughest legal questions, and that’s what he wanted. He was very bored with the easy cases, but he wanted the tough ones, and those of you – and you’ve probably read some of his opinions – can see this. It’s like an ongoing dialogue. He’ll raise some proposition that’s important, and then some qualification, and then link it up with something else, and it’s also beautifully written.

GL: And then you clerked for then Justice

CJ: Right william Rehnquist

GL: Right and how was that one?

CJ: You know it was it was different. In a lot of ways, one he was a generation… FriendlEy was almost like two generations above me, and Rehnquist was kind of between the two of us, so it was a much more – I don’t want not casual but it’s probably right –  and Rehnquist was a casual person. Anyway, it was a very different approach to law. He was both similarly, not cynical,  but Rehnquist was very logical. I would say if you read his opinions, you you can follow very clearly. You build step by step.  Friendley was more sort of flowing, so for in terms of learning how to write, it was a great combination. You could see two different styles, and I don’t know what people would say my style is, but you know, you could see when it’s some opinions seem to fit a more sort of logical progression and and others seem to involve a little bit more need for more nuance, and you know you try to – some styles fit different types of cases better – but Justice Rehnquist was just a delight to work for. He’s very very comfortable, very casual. You know, when he was nominated by President Nixon, everybody made fun of the way he looked because he had a real loud tie and a big sideburn. He looked like Buddy Holly, but you know he was comfortable in his own skin. It’s very interesting: law clerks,  both Judge Friendley’s and Justice Rehnquist, were I think probably as most law clerks are very loyal to their bosses, I mean, it is interesting,  two very kind of different approaches to legal writing, and I think of them as different approaches to legal analysis. You know and talking about kind of the different influences as you started your career i yeah I feel very lucky not only to have the clerkships but from you know seeing different perspectives and different ways of approaching the job and different work products that come out. It was a good way to start the career.

GL: And then you started working next as an aid to US Attorney General William French Smith, and then you worked in the White House Counsel’s office when the White House Counsel was Fred Fielding during the Reagan administration, a brief period in the private sector, two years at Hogan and Hartson. And then you were appointed principal deputy solicitor general, right, by President George HW Bush, and lasted for three years, and then you returned to Hogan and Hartson in 1993, and then you were there until another President Bush took office, and you were nominated and confirmed for the court of appeals DC in 2003 and then in 20…

CJ: Well, well you’re skipping over some drama. I mean after I had been nominated for the Court of Appeals previously, and I was nominated on my birthday because they wanted to make it look like I was older, you know he’s been, he’s been 37 years old for a long time – well 20 20 hours wouldn’t – and that didn’t work out. I didn’t get a hearing. Some guy named Biden said “Nah let’s not give him a hearing.” And it’s interesting, because, you know, I was naturally disappointed by that, and because then the you know the administrations changed, and the nomination lapsed and you know didn’t really expect you know as Rehnquist said the bus to stop by my place again. But you know then I shifted back to private practice. But you know looking back on it, this is in terms of advice you want your, you know, bad luck to be good, because I think if I had been confirmed at that early age, you know, when a vacancy came up on the court, I probably would have had far too much baggage to be considered for it, or no reason to be, but it gave me a chance to you know move on to private practice and you know make some money. Always a good objective, always a good thing.

GL: 2003 nominated for the court of appeals this time it worked.

CJ: Yep it worked

GL: And then in 2005 for the Supreme Court first for the seat that Sandra Day O’ Conor was stepping down from and then Chief Justice Rehnquist died, and you became nominated for for Chief Justice. Were you surprised?

CJ: I was surprised at every step along the way to be honest with you, but I had only been a judge for two years and didn’t have much of a record. Turned out that was an advantage, and it moves very quickly, and then very difficult to have Chief Justice Rehnquist pass away. And it it was a a period of great trauma almost. You couldn’t really grasp it. I mean I get, you know, the nomination, and then I think it was like a week and a half later Chief Justice Ranquist died, and they had actually postponed my hearings for a little while so you know as the change is being announced I remember it being like Monday in an interview President Bush talked to me. I went to the White House again Sunday night? and he said “Well,” and I still was wondering what was going to happen with who was going to be the chief justice because I was going to replace Justice O’Connor, and and he said “Well would you have given any thought to being the Chief Justice?” And I said “No I haven’t.” And he said “Well start.” But he didn’t say and then he said, you know they wouldn’t want you to be here tomorrow morning. I’ve got to sleep on it and all this, and I said well fine, and then it was announced that morning, and the next day I’m carrying Chief Justice Rehnquist’s casket up the steps of the court. Extremely emotional time with all this stuff going back and forth you almost didn’t have time to to digest it i mean that’s a that’s a lot yeah yeah so then so you’re confirmed

GL: And you’re 50

CJ: Yep

GL: So you’re the youngest Chief Justice in a 100 years

CJ: 200 I think 200 maybe I’m skipping somebody

GL:Well I bet what you’re doing is counting Charles Evans Hughes but he was already on the court as an you know an associate justice

CJ: Okay I’m willing to confess error on that but that is I actually I researched for this the youngest chief justice maybe maybe I

GL:No no I think you’re right. I don’t you know it’s actually it’s on the Supreme Court there can text it or something. On the Supreme Court website it says 100 years so I thought that would be safe and it turns out what says 100 years

CJ: It does say 100 yeah

GL:You got to get that corrected somebody can do that right? So John J was 44

CI: Well okay but I mean life expectancy was much shorter then, so you know Marshall was younger?

GL: Marshall was 45 that I did my research, but I think that’s it that’s it you’re next

CJ: Well I Yeah but that’s not a hundred years that is 200 years just say all right

GL: Okay okay so amended 200 years all right. Now to turn on a sadder note we want to acknowledge the sadness that you and your colleagues who served along Justice Sudter felt at his passing, and you described him as someone who brought quote uncommon wisdom and kindness to a lifetime of public service end of quote. Would you like to share some of your thoughts on Justice Sudter’s legacy on the court and on our country, and what lessons you hope lawyers of all backgrounds learn from your late colleague?

CJ: Yeah you know I argued dozens of cases before him. He was always a fair questioner. Sometimes tough it’s not like he was throwing any you know lobbing any pitches in because he wasn’t somebody like. You know a lot of people were on the court, and it’s a good thing sort of really rapid fire so his questions were always thoughtful never you know designed to embarrass you or to show how you know witty or whatever. He was always direct and substantive and meaningful. You knew they were meaningful to him, and then about five years as a colleague, and you know it’s interesting I do think uncommon wisdom but also kindness which is not always a common combination. He was extremely thoughtful. Any kind of certain tragedy or difficulty in your life or even you know pleasant things, you would get a note from him. Beautiful calligraphy type handwriting and not just you know sorry for your loss whatever, but really quite thoughtful you know, both sides of the card and sometimes more about you know similar experiences in his life and you know this and that I mean you know the kind of thing that you save.

I mean I have a nice collection of his things and very very thoughtful and he was was very kind in that way.  I remember being very surprised when he came in and told me that he was going to to leave to retire.  I remember saying I said “Well David you’re in perfect health, your mental acuity, why would you want to why would you want to leave?” and it was a good lesson in kind of perspective He said “Well I’ve been here you know almost 20 years i think I’ve made you know my contribution.” And I just want to get back to New Hampshire and back to reading some good books, which there aren’t many people who would have that kind of a perspective you know including myself. I wouldn’t claim to be have that kind of view but sort of a very good balanced way of looking at all of it, and you know as we read a letter from the court to a departing colleague and it was just that you know part of it was he wanted to leave you know white marble for the white mountains, and he did. That’s what he wanted to do, and so he did it and kind of certainly very unconventional in that respect.  I mean that’s remarkable. I can’t think of anyone else in recent years who’s left the court really kind of at the peak of their powers that’s really I mean in so many ways he was a remarkable man very much so and very very pleasant to be around. We got to know him a little better, Jane and I. Our son was going to boarding school in New Hampshire for a while and we would drive you know back and forth and stop whenever we could and have dinner with him. He had a reputation for being you know very cheap and and he was just I think that’s something people from New Hampshire pride themselves on, but he would he would buy dinner so that was it’s very very we called him we talked every year on his birthday September 17th it’s easy to remember because it’s Constitution Day and always had a very very nice conversation. Actually my wife Allison is here and our son Liam’s birthday is Constitution Day

GL: there you go

CJ: So it’s really it’s a great day every way around. Now let me turn to advice. So as legal educators we strive to teach our students to write and think and research at the highest level, and we also aspire to teach them to conduct themselves in a way that embodies the highest standards of our profession. Are there any particular personal skills or attributes that you think are especially important for young lawyers like our graduates to cultivate?

CJ: Well sure, in terms of going out in the profession or entering whatever type of business, I think there’s an instinct to make sure people know how much you know. I mean you want to sort of prove yourself and someone’s asking this or that and you want something. On the other hand, I found and I know other people, whether it’s other partners in law firms, law firms have been impressed by people who who know how to listen. You shouldn’t be, others shouldn’t be so anxious to show that you know. I’m ready to go, Iknow what I’m doing, you you know, but it’s more just, you know, what can I do? What is it, particularly with prospective clients or clients, just to sit somebody down and say okay now like what’s the story, what’s the problem? Whether it is a tenant landlord problem or a you know takeover of some subsidiary problem people, don’t like to be, okay this is what you need to do blah blah blah, before you even… sort of like being a physician. You know, you want to, you don’t want to give a diagnosis right away. You want to figure out what the symptoms are, so I think that’s a valuable thing to keep in mind, and it might follow from the same thing, but, and again in none of this am I suggesting… If I followed this future advice, you learn from you know making mistakes, but I wouldn’t be afraid of being naive. You’re not supposed to know everything, and it’s all right to be you know impressed by whatever is in front of you, whether it’s where you’re working or who the individuals are that come in or simply somebody who’s you know has 30 whatever years of experience and is you know showing you how to do things. You need I think to move away from sort of this inherent skepticism or cynicism and the people you’re dealing with will be impressed by the fact that you seem to understand that you don’t know everything already, so I think that would be I mean that’s so listening and being naive

GL: You know, you gave what I think is the best graduating speech that I’ve ever heard for your son Jack’s graduation.

CJ: Oh yeah yeah.

GL: And you offered some, you know, very valuable advice there, again kind of like this in that it’s not what you typically hear in graduation speeches. Could you talk a little bit about that?

CK: Well first of all I don’t care whether you’re you know addressing Congress or you know the House of Lords or whatever, nothing is more terrifying than addressing your eighth grade son’s graduation. I mean the worst thing is how, and of course your son is totally embarrassed by the whole thing, but it was short and so that was good and I tried to tell them that I thought it would be good for, you know, some bad things to happen to them. To say, you know, that I hope you’re lonely from time to time so that you appreciate friendships. You know, things like that which seemed to resonate a little bit, because even at that young age, you know, these are are kids that are going to have to deal with things, and it’s nice to know that when bad things do happen to them that they should appreciate that there’s a message there, and if you’re bullied you should take the lesson from that that you don’t bully the the younger kids, and so I think that’s an important, I think for eighth graders, it was an important message to get across, so that they appreciate that not every day is going to be great, but you should also understand from that that there are lessons there. But it’s like, you’re not being confirmed the first time you’re nominated. I think one of the things that we I think try to teach or talk about is resilience. That it’s important that there are inevitably going to be losses in your life, and to be able to overcome them and be resilient I think is very crucial i think. It’s never going to be certainly in your career, whatever you decide to do. It’s never going to be a smooth progression, but you need to learn from you know the bad things as well as the good things

GL: So next advice question and we have two students who asked this question so Adrien Jackson and Giovanni Woo, are you here? Hi please stand up so you can be recognized.  So we endeavor to teach our students about the rule of law, its fundamental role in our constitutional democracy, its complex operations and at times its fragility, and the class of 2025 now heads off to practice in myriad settings from civil rights litigation to private equity transactions to cyber security regulation, and the question is what steps can our newly admitted lawyers take to strengthen the rule of law?

CJ: Well I think I will take my lead from the person I was first nominated to replace: Justice O’Connor and one of my current colleagues, Justice Sotomayor,  who are very active in something called Civics, and I think you’re talking about strengthening the rule of law. One area where it’s most endangered is with young people. About young people, I mean that they they’re focused on high school and eighth grade and things like that, and how many people have really no understanding of what the role of courts are, what the different branches have to do really, even the notion of what law is, and what a constitution is, and there are always opportunities wherever you are, and you know give Justice Sotomayor a call and she’ll tell you where they are if you don’t know in your particular area. Now don’t do that. Just call her her office, and you can really learn how to be helpful. Whether it’s spending an afternoon with the seventh grade class and teaching them how law works or many, many other things. So there are a lot of opportunities, and I do think you kind of have to start as early as you possibly can, because otherwise it doesn’t become part of their understanding of government. You know when they’re cutting classes because they want to add all sorts of other stuff, I mean certainly civics is the first thing that goes, you know, and I think that’s really too bad, and we’re developing a situation where the whole group of young people is growing up having no real sense about how our system of justice works.

GL: Thanks very much for the question Adrian. In your 2024 year-end report on the federal judiciary, you wrote that criticism comes with the territory for judges and that it can be healthy, so how do you handle criticism of your court or your opinions?

CJ: I don’t read it. [audience laughter] No, first of all, it’s a good thing, and I’m not being whatever, I’m sincere. It is a good thing, so long as it’s not, you know, trashing the justices, but we make – I mean, the court has obviously made mistakes throughout its history, and those should be criticized, so long as it is in terms of the decision really and not ad hominim against the the justices. I just think that doesn’t do do any good, and, you know, the harshest critics are usually colleagues. If it’s a sort of thing where people – where there are dissents, so it’s something we’re used to, and again, it’s a good thing.  You know we’re not immune from any criticism, and there are many, many instances in our history where it’s been effective over time and leading to a better result, so staying with kind of the criticism and disagreement focusing on the court.

GL: So our graduates are entering their profession at a time of strong divisions in our society, and you and your colleagues have been known to express strong disagreements from time to time in your written work, yet by all accounts you maintain a collegial work environment. So this question comes from Joselina Martins. Okay fortunately this is all being taped so Joselina will be able to – she found something better to do. So the question is how do you maintain a collegial work environment?

CJ: You know, it’s not as hard as you might expect. Because you do develop strong relationships with nine people,  nine different people with very different views and different backgrounds, and yet we have to work together on these things that are difficult. You find a way to to get along. I mean it’s a long job if you’re sort of really at each other’s throats with bad feelings and stuff like that. It just it’s not a good way to function, and I think we all realize that we’re kind of in it together and partly that’s fortified by the fact that you’re you know somebody that you’re at loggerheads with and you know pretty sharp you know this your ally the next, the next case, right, and the sort of normal divisions people focus on. You know whether it’s five – four, most cases are not that we’re together on cases unanimously more than any other combination, and so you’re often working together in a very difficult environment where you really can’t share what you’re going through with anybody else, whether it’s you know a spouse even or a child, and you know, just to take one obvious example: we have a particular case you know, and what we decide to do will mean whether somebody lives or dies, and if you haven’t gone through that with other people, you really don’t understand.

I mean you share that burden with these other eight people, and you know that they’re experiencing the same sort of challenge and obligation and trying to carry out their responsibility as best they can, and they’re little things. Chief Justice Fuller instituted the practice we carry today of we’re, you know, shake each other’s hand before we go on on the bench, and it’s amazing how that works. No matter how I hope the words aren’t appropriate but bitter a disagreement may have been if the next morning you just sort of have to you know take your colleague’s hand and look him or her in the eye and say good morning. That does a lot to dissipate it, and you realize, well, it’s time to move on to something else, and hopefully we’ll you know sort of be on the same side then, and if not maybe it won’t be as difficult a case

There have been times in the court’s history where that hasn’t held up and there have been really toxic relationships between some members, and I think all of us are committed to making sure that nothing like that happens, so that common commitment.. The reality that you’re going to be on different sides and on the same sides and different cases and the obligation that you just have to look people in the eye, and you know say that was yesterday and you know maybe today will be will be better, and it it comes from from life tenure.

I mean, little things. I mean if you’re sitting next to somebody and you just can’t stand the way he or she kind of taps the chair you’re thinking “Okay we’ll be here together for 20 years.” And you know I’ve got to decide am I going to tell her to stop doing that, or am I going to just get over it, or what? And on a small level that’s kind of the way you know across the board you kind of have to make those decisions and move on, and the fact that we do have to address some very, very difficult things, and we’re the only people who are doing it, and we’re doing it together: that’s just a real bond no matter where or what. I mean you, when you run into a colleague whe at some event or whatever, I mean it just is, it’s sort of an instinctive connection that we’re in this together. You know he or she, we’re doing something together in a way that no nobody else in the government does. So yeah we disagree a lot, and it’s, you know, the words and the opinions are not that’s not phony, that’s what people think, but we have to do it together, and we do it together and that helps.

And I agree with the great wisdom of Justice Louie Brandeise who said he could do 12 months worth of work in 10 months, but he couldn’t do it in 12 months, and I think that’s absolutely right. That break is critical to maintaining a level balance. I mean that’s remarkable because we all think of Supreme Court justices in isolation or as part of a people appointed by the same president but the han dimension is you know it’s clearly very important, and I love that tradition of shaking hands right.

GL: No it’s what Chief Justice Fuller is famous for. So let me change to a legal doctrine. Okay in recent years there’s been a lot of discussion about the place of star decisis in the law as an important but not inviable principle. So what are your thoughts on when to overrule president and are there any misconceptions the public has about it?

CJ: Well I’ll start with the last one first. My exact numbers are going to be a little off here because I don’t remember them. The Warren Court I think overruled an average of 3.2 cases a year, the Burger Court maybe surprisingly or not an average of 3.4? the Rehnquist court was much well significantly lower at 2.4 you know per year. The last I looked the current court’s average was 1.8, so the perspective of you know how many cases are being overruled and all that I think people have a misunderstanding about how much the current court is overruling precedent, and you know it is not necessarily a bad thing. I mean are you happy that Katz overruled Olmstead, are you happy that Brown overruled you know Pi, you know of course so certainly it it can be a good thing you need to have appropriate standards. If you do it willy-nilly there’s no real sense in which law is is established, and there’s some cases that it just doesn’t make sense even if you think they’re bad. I mean if you have a decision about well the way you count the days, the deadline you know does include weekends or doesn’t include weekends, doesn’t matter. What the answer does for the person whose case it is of course but and so you would never overrule a case like that and in many cases it’s more important that the case be decided than decided right, but there are other cases where that’s obviously not the case, and you have to have significant precedent about when you should overrule precedent and the one case in which you shouldn’t is simply because you know five members of the court think differently than five members of the court used to. You need a much more substantial justification for unsettling the law and that’s an important consideration to keep in mind.

GL: So what are the factors that you look at in deciding to overturn precedent?

CJ: Well first of all how wrong the decision is. I mean if it’s just hey it would have come out the other way or it’s something that’s a terrible result and an important area and how necessary it is to the stability. I mean is that a central of ongoing importance so you don’t want that bad effect to continue on into the future if it’s something that comes up only every now and then that’s a  different consideration. What the impact is on the stability of law and what the impact is in keeping what majority of the court thinks is the wrong decision ongoing.

GL: So now let me turn to your role as a writer of opinions. So I think you have a justifiable reputation as really a great judicial craftsman; that your opinions are you know incredibly well written, so I’m really trying to make up a kind of understating how unique your youth and your tenure was so you talked a little bit about Judge Friendly and Chief Justice Rehnquist. Is there somebody who was you know a model to you with respect to your love of words and writing and you know are there any tips that you could give our graduates about writing?

CJ: Well I can’t think of any individual I think you all probably have the same sense – I mean the way to learn how to write well is to read a lot, and you will know what’s good writing and hopefully absorb some of it, and so that’s where I think the ability to write well comes from. Your mind processes the fact you read that and said “I can’t figure out what that means, and you don’t learn not to write like that or that’s wonderful and that’s how I know.” I mean you’re right I had two very good writers to learn from. I mean I think of Judge Friendly as you know writing like Joseph Conrad not that the sentences are four pages but that they flow really quite beautifully and  even in a technical area whatever they do kind of you know take you along the right result and and Rehnquist is more like Elmore Leonard if anybody likes that. It’s very you know very logical steps, but you mean they it’s not like you pick up any opinion it looks like that that. I mean the last Orisa opinion from you know whoever whichever one I looked at didn’t really seem like that, but you know there are different approaches and different cases call for different styles of writing, and it’s really something that I mean if you you worry about how it reads as opposed to the logic just the logical structure you do have to spend a lot of time with it.  I mean you do have to you know have a lot of crumpled up pieces of paper. Well showing my age I guess crumpled up pieces of paper in the trash can or a lot of key strokes or whatever. If you’re really interested in making it read well and you know some are more interested than others and there’s nothing wrong with that, but I like to do it so I like to put in the energy to do it.

GL: Is there any justice who you’d single out as a particularly good writer any justice throughout history who you think of as a particularly powerful writer who we might keep in mind well?

CJ: I don’t know if other people will think the same but Marshall is a surprisingly good writer. I mean I know Marberry versus Madison goes on forever but  you’re along for the ride, and it is I think in many places very eloquent and a lot of his other stuff was he’s very direct logical even for that age. I mean it doesn’t, there’s not a lot of legalese so I think he’d be a good one to read

It’s interesting you know your talk also about kind of the personal ties between the justices, when he was chief justice first of all most of the decisions were unanimous and they all lived in his the same boarding house, and they drank a lot of madiraa. Yeah he was one of the largest importers of madiraa in the in the country

GL: Is that right?

CJ: Yeah yeah they kept they complained it’s good because of the bad weather and  the water wasn’t good so they had to drink that and there was the rule in this house they they lived in that they would not drink unless the weather was in Clement and Marshall would always send Joseph Story to the window and say you know brother Story what’s the weather like, and well it’s kind of pretty clear and Marshall it’s raining somewhere it’s a big country and they’d say break out the Madiraa, and after a couple of glasses Marshia would say well why don’t we do this in that you know Marberry case. I’ll take care of it don’t worry, but no it was there was the same sort of probably a deeper bond with them because they I don’t know if it’s maybe it’s too much of being with each other but they did live together in the boarding house, spent more of their time writing circuit than sitting in Washington, and almost all the opinions were unanimous. I think there was a holdover where the the idea of dissenting really wasn’t quite established, and I also think there was a fair bit of you know Marshall didn’t sort of say here’s what we’re going to do, it was more you know sitting down together and kind of working it out and then he just sort of put it on paper.

GL: So do you have a favorite chief justice?

CJ: Well I mean Marshall’s the answer to that question for anybody I mean unless you’re related to somebody I guess but but yeah I mean what his accomplishments are remarkable he is. I’m happy to defend the most important figure in American certainly political history that wasn’t a president and a lot more important than about half the presidents in terms of you know. Marberry is such an institutional structure in terms of you know I don’t have any doubt about what the framers thought but at the same time it’s not clear that that vision would have been established if it weren’t for Marshall and the tremendous Rehnquist talks about it a lot in some of his writing. I mean the single unique original contribution of American political thought to political thought in general was the institution of independent judicial review. I mean we think of places that have a similar system like England and all that well right in practice but you know the high court  in England is a committee of the house of lords. The notion that it’s somehow independent from parliament doesn’t make any sense. I  mean they changed that recently with the EU stuff and I guess they could still in effect they now have a Supreme Court before that they actually didn’t, but the idea of an independent judicial entity, a co-equal branch of government was an extraordinary revolution, and Marshall’s determination is that the constitution is law and therefore the lawyers on this court are the ones who interpret it and that’s what binds the rest of the  government. It was a a real revolution and established at an absolutely critical time where the notion of how the government was going to function sort of the Jeffersonian revolution and the establishment of what we all take for granted of sort of three separate branches of government was really I don’t want to say an open issue but it wasn’t formalized and articulated until Marshall.

GL: So let me follow up on that so you talked about Chief Justice Rehnquist so he wrote quote “The creation of an independent constitutional court with the authority to declare unconstitutional laws passed by state or federal legislatures to declare them unconstitutional is probably the most significant contribution the United States has made to the art of government.” End of quote so what are your thoughts on how the independent federal judiciary has shaped and maintained the rule of law over our nation’s history

CJ:Well I mean we’ve  had good moments and not so good moments. I mean the fact that you recognize an institution that’s to articulate what again it’s Marshall’s word what the law is doesn’t mean that you’re going to get it right all the time and you may go through periods where you didn’t get it right but the notion that that rule of law governs is the basic proposition and again certainly as a matter of theory but also as a matter of practice we need to stop and reflect every now and then how rare that is certainly rare throughout history and rare in the in the the world today, and it’s invaluable 

GL: So you’ve been chief justice for 20 years and as you look back what has surprised you most about how the court society as a whole has changed over that time?

CJ: Well you know and again it’s not because of that particular place although it’s a place that I think is going to be dealing with this for a long time and I think it’s an answer most people would give and that’s technology. I mean it’s hard to believe it’s 20 years but I remember clerking for when I was clerking for Rehnquist we got the first word processor and it was huge and we were just absolutely fascinated about how it would work and you could change the letters on this we’re all gathered around it and and the idea of being able to manipulate data the way can do now it’s hard for for those of us of a certain age to kind of always sort of keep up and now with artificial intelligence I don’t know I mean I don’t know what the impact on all of you is going to be. I mean you have these things now they put in and you know you go in you’re going to be an associate of law firm and some partner’s going to say “Well I want give me all the good cases you can have about you know contributo negligence that you know come out a particular way you know and are decided by this i mean somebody in the back room is just putting that in and pressing a button.” And you know it’s going to take you if you’re a new associate I don’t know how many days to come up with the answer, and now it takes your friend AI five minutes: that’s going to be a real revolution and the skill is obviously going to be that you’re going to have to develop as far as I know but how to manipulate the artificial intelligence in a way that gives you the most you know responsive product but you know it’s actually not I mean the the skills to be a good lawyer they they evolve you know in Cicero’s age to be a good lawyer you had to have a good voice a good strong voice so they could hear you throughout the whatever it was the curia or something and he did you know and then you know in Lincoln’s age you should see we have Lincoln argued one argent in the court when he was a member of Congress  down in the basement and argued a case in the Supreme Court the most mundane issue it was about the operation of the statute of limitations while the landowner was out of date and all that and so we have his have his notes and you look at them first of all they’re exactly like your notes in the first year moot court he’s got a list of cases here and things over here and the one thing you notice it’s just beautiful handwriting almost as good as David Suitor i mean it’s just beautiful and that’s what lawyers need to do. You’re writing the contract, you’re writing the title if you can’t read you know that’s that’s not going to do any u do any good, so then you know penmanship was an important qualification when I was in law school finding the law was a big deal because you had to go through all these dusty digests state cases or federal cases with the keyynotes and go through and it would be a great thing. I found a case you know from the Arkansas Supreme Court that says this or that that’s not a big deal for you now you well just press a few buttons and you’ve got every case, but I mean that’s the problem right –  you’ve got every case and your skill is kind of trying to figure out well which of this vast database makes makes the most sense and what and I don’t know enough about it to but what I gather might be the next challenge. Okay now you’ve got all this what technology do you apply to that to figure out you know what do you do with these 500 cases and which ones are important and which ones which ones aren’t I think somebody was showing me the other day that I just really don’t like that they’ve got this opinion and they say “Okay now do it in the voice of John Roberts,” and it comes out and it reads like “Yeah that looks like one of them.” And now change it to Justice Kagan and it’s a different thing and all that but so I  think it’s a real challenge. i mean I your question being I  don’t quite remember it but I do think it’s in terms of the big challenge and they’re different they’re different today than they were when you know you and I were coming out of law school I do think it’s strikes me as a real brave new world and I don’t know once once the AI figures out how to do the best presentation of the case and then you’ve got other AI things deciding the case. I mean it’s not I’m glad I’m not starting out right now because I don’t think I don’t think I would be very good at it because I’m not good at the technology but.

GL: So in following on that in your 20 23 year end report you wrote about AI and other technology changes and how they might impact the law but you also reassured judges that machines were not coming for their jobs you still believe that?

CH: You know I do in the sense that I mean they do that i mean you all know better than I do ai things act as function as judges in particular place they put in this data and figure out well 90 two% of the time when you’ve got all these variables this is who wins but I do think there’s still a role for discretion judgment and you know maybe even programming exactly how something is going to work on some of this stuff but it’s an you know an individual and you know interacting with society at some level and another individual or individuals who are going to exercise the judicial discretion and I just don’t understand how the machine is going to be able to make those sensitive judgments about whether a particular individual should you know go to jail should prevail there just seems to me to be too many nuances. Now maybe I’m just ignorant of how effective the technology can be but

GL: So another technology question: the pandemic required the court to alter the procedures for oral argent including live streaming the audio freed from the courtroom for the first time so after the pandemic you retain the new format and how has that gone and do you ever miss the old format

CJ:Well I’ll take them in reverse order the answer is yes this was a compromise.  Sometimes you know I kind of thought when we were done because you had to you can’t have a free-for-all you know streaming interaction with the lawyer so we went okay justice so and so now you’ve got whatever five minutes or so with the lawyer ask whatever you want and then somebody else and somebody else somebody else and when it was we were free of the restraints of COVID and we go back to it I’m sort of like well let’s go back to the old way and some people are saying you kind of like the old the new way a little bit and so we couldn’t figure out the new way the old way so we compromised by saying well let’s do both so that’s what we’ve got now it makes things longer than usual you lose a little bit of the free exch maybe it’s because you know I made a living arguing in that environment i liked it i like the idea that you get different questions coming at you and if your case was good and you had a sound grasp you had answers and that helped make the case and I don’t like sort of one-on-one it just seems very dull on the other hand some of my colleagues like it and that’s you know that’s what we’re gonna do very good so as we’re drawing because I always try to accommodate my colleagues the handshake and Yeah exactly exactly and

GL: So as we’re drawing to a close some personal advice so lawyers and judges tend to work long hours under considerable stress and what do you do to maintain a healthy work life balance and and what advice do you have for young lawyers in that regard

eCJ: Well I found that having children is a good way to maintain a healthy work life balance because you know you want to spend time with them and and be interested in what they’re doing you know my both my son and daughter’s first word was dada their second word was I don’t want to be a lawyer but they’ve gone in different directions and I’m I’m happy they did i mean you need something outside of your your work and you know things like family do that and resist the temptation to become all consed you know by by your work you know it’s an old saying you know u about law is a jealous mistress or something like that

Well you need to make sure you have a broader view of life than thinking that all there is to it is u is the law and I certainly hope all of you will appreciate that and it’ll make your life I think a lot more enjoyable

GL: Well that’s I think that is wonderful advice to close on round of applause for the Chief Justice thank you thank you thank you very much i appreciate that so we also that the record show my wife was applauding too so so you clearly what you said resonated with your wife nice to see you Jane who’s a graduate of the law center round of applause for Jane please so I have to say this is really this is very moving for me I’ve been doing this really almost since the start of my deanship and this is where I conclude and you know just the combination of kind of the wisdom and the thoughtful advice and the sense of hor and the modeling of you know how we do the work life balance is really remarkable and it’s just it’s it’s really it’s a privilege for me to be part of this conversation with you and so we have well before we end that Bill thank you so much for for this opportunity but also for what you’ve done for the legal community here in Washington and more broadly it’s an extraordinary contribution and hope you enjoy what’s to come a round of applause for That was incredible thank you so the we have from Georgetown Law Distinguished Lecture to the graduating class presented to John G Roberts Jr chief Justice of the United States May 12th 2025 thank you so much for the that wonderful comment at the end and thank you for an extraordinary conversation chief Justice Thank you so much thank you

Banner Image:  Chief Justice John Roberts. Image Credit – McConnell Center