The Judicial Philosophy of Chief Justice John Roberts: An Analysis Through the Eyes of International Law

Abstract

This Article is about two things: law in United States and Chief Justice John Roberts’s judicial philosophy. How do two relate? Quite nicely, actually. First, Chief Justice Roberts has penned majority opinions in landmark cases directly addressing important law issues. Second, cases involving law serve as an excellent window into a Justice’s judicial philosophy. Consider Chief Justice Roberts’s concluding paragraph in Medellin v. Texas, a watershed case in which Court held that judgments of International Court of Justice (ICJ) are generally not enforceable in United States courts: In sum, while ICJ’s judgment in Avena creates an law obligation on part of United States, it does not of its own force constitute binding federal law that pre-empts state restrictions... Nothing in text, background, negotiating and drafting history, or practice among signatory nations suggests that President or Senate intended improbable result of giving judgments of an tribunal a higher status than that enjoyed by many of our most fundamental constitutional protections. Federalism, separation of powers, treaty interpretation, U.S. sovereignty — all issues touched on in just two sentences. Moreover, as law expands from governing only relations between States to touching every area within jurisdiction of several states, status of law in United States has come under increasing scrutiny. No longer is it uncontroversial to say that international law is part of our Indeed, liberal and conservative justices routinely split over cases involving law. Part Two of this Article will provide an overview of five law issues in United States ((1) presumption against extraterritoriality; (2) human rights litigation in United States federal courts; (3) doctrine of self-executing treaties; (4) scope of treaty power; and (5) customary law as federal common law) and then provide an update on current status of these issues under Chief Justice Roberts. Part Three draws conclusions about Chief Justice Roberts’s judicial philosophy based on cases discussed and ultimately concludes that Chief Justice is a prudentialist, a judge who holds fast to the conviction that federal judges must cultivate virtues of modesty and humility, staying true to their constitutional duty to interpret law while fending off whenever possible temptation to intrude upon proper provinces of other public and private institutions.