When Words Ring Hollow
Chief Justice John Roberts released his annual year-end report on the federal judiciary, and it’s a remarkable document—not for what it says, but for what it so carefully avoids saying.
Roberts chose to focus on Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense” and the Declaration of Independence, waxing eloquent about America’s founding principles and the judiciary’s sacred duty to decide cases “faithfully and impartially.” It’s a beautiful sentiment. It’s also utterly disconnected from the reality of the Supreme Court he leads.
The Art of Strategic Silence
Roberts emphasized that federal judges must “decide the cases before us according to our oath” and perform their duties “faithfully and impartially” under the Constitution. He quoted Calvin Coolidge’s 1926 assertion that the Declaration and Constitution “remain firm and unshaken.”
What Roberts didn’t mention: the series of favorable rulings his conservative majority has issued for the Trump administration on presidential power, agency appointments, and immigration policies. The shadow docket decisions that bypass normal Supreme Court procedures. The overturning of decades of precedent without acknowledging the political motivations behind the timing.
Impartiality as Performance Art
Roberts spoke eloquently about judicial impartiality while presiding over a Court where:
- Justice Clarence Thomas accepted millions in undisclosed gifts from Republican megadonors with business before the Court
- Justice Samuel Alito took luxury trips funded by billionaires with cases pending before him
- Both justices refused to recuse themselves despite clear conflicts of interest
- The conservative majority systematically dismantles voting rights, abortion access, environmental protections, and administrative law—all aligned with the Republican Party platform
This isn’t impartiality. It’s partisanship with better PR.
The Coolidge Comparison: Then and Now
Roberts invoked President Coolidge’s 1926 statement that our founding documents “remain firm and unshaken.” But there’s a crucial difference between Coolidge’s era and ours.
In 1926, Americans could reasonably believe that the Supreme Court, while imperfect, was trying to fulfill the Constitution’s promises. The Court hadn’t yet delivered Brown v. Board of Education, but it would. The arc of jurisprudence, however slowly, was bending toward justice.
In 2025, the Supreme Court is actively reversing that arc. Roberts’ Court has:
- Gutted the Voting Rights Act in Shelby County v. Holder
- Eliminated the constitutional right to abortion in Dobbs v. Jackson
- Weaponized the First Amendment to protect corporate power and religious favoritism
- Created unprecedented presidential immunity that would have shocked the Founders
- Destroyed the administrative state in cases like Chevron and Loper Bright
What Roberts Should Have Said
If the Chief Justice wanted to invoke America’s founding principles, here’s what an honest year-end report would acknowledge:
“The Supreme Court faces a legitimacy crisis of our own making.”
Six justices were appointed by presidents who lost the popular vote. Multiple justices have engaged in conduct that would disqualify any other federal judge. We’ve overturned precedents at a pace not seen since the 1930s, undermining the principle that the law should be stable and predictable.
“We need accountability.”
A binding, enforceable ethics code with independent oversight. Term limits to ensure the Court reflects the will of living Americans, not the political accidents of when justices happen to die. Transparency in our decision-making processes, especially on the shadow docket.
“The American people deserve better.”
Instead, we got platitudes about Thomas Paine and the Declaration of Independence—documents that promised equality and justice while excluding women, enslaving Black Americans, and limiting political participation to white male property owners. Roberts’ invocation of these imperfect founding documents while ignoring the Court’s current failures is either breathtakingly tone-deaf or deliberately evasive.
Probably both.
The Paine Irony
There’s a particular irony in Roberts choosing Thomas Paine as his historical anchor. Paine wrote “Common Sense” to challenge the legitimacy of inherited, unaccountable power. He argued that no generation should be bound by the decisions of those who came before, and that institutions must earn their authority through service to the people.
Sound familiar?
Paine would have been horrified by lifetime judicial appointments. He would have found the concept of nine unelected lawyers overriding the democratic will of millions antithetical to everything “Common Sense” stood for. And he certainly would have demanded accountability for justices who accept millions in gifts from partisan donors.
Roberts invokes Paine while leading an institution Paine would have condemned. That’s not just ironic—it’s insulting.
The Pattern Is Clear
This year-end report is entirely consistent with Roberts’ tenure as Chief Justice: maintain the appearance of institutional legitimacy while the Court’s conservative majority systematically dismantles constitutional protections and democratic norms.
Roberts gave a speech defending the Court’s legitimacy even as his colleagues’ corruption scandals dominated headlines. He wrote the majority opinion in Shelby County that gutted voting rights protections, claiming discrimination was no longer a problem—right before Republican-controlled states immediately began suppressing minority voters.
He wants credit for being a measured, institutionalist judge while delivering results that would make the Federalist Society proud. It’s Chief Justice as brand manager, not judicial leader.
What This Means for Reform
Roberts’ year-end report makes one thing crystal clear: the Supreme Court will not reform itself. The Chief Justice cannot even bring himself to acknowledge the problems, let alone address them.
This is why reform cannot be piecemeal. We need:
- A binding ethics code with real enforcement mechanisms
- Term limits to prevent the Court from being captured by minority political factions
- Transparency requirements for the shadow docket and all Court proceedings
- Recusal standards that apply to Supreme Court justices the same way they apply to every other federal judge
Roberts has made it abundantly clear that voluntary compliance won’t work. When the Chief Justice delivers a year-end report that reads like a civics textbook while his Court operates like a partisan legislature, we’re past the point where strongly worded letters will solve the problem.
The Declaration He Didn’t Quote
Roberts quoted the Declaration of Independence’s lofty principles. Here’s the part he left out:
“Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed… whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it.”
The Supreme Court derives its power from the consent of the American people. When that Court systematically betrays democratic principles, accepts corruption, and operates as a partisan institution, the people have not just the right but the obligation to reform it.
Thomas Paine understood that. The Founders understood that. Chief Justice Roberts apparently does not.
The Bottom Line
Roberts’ year-end report is a masterclass in saying nothing while appearing to say something profound. It’s the judicial equivalent of a corporate CEO’s annual letter praising “our values” while the company gets fined for fraud.
The Supreme Court doesn’t need homilies about the Declaration of Independence. It needs accountability, transparency, and reform. Until we get those things, every year-end report from the Chief Justice will be just another exercise in institutional self-delusion.
The Court is broken. Chief Justice Roberts knows it. His refusal to even acknowledge the problem tells you everything you need to know about why fixing the Supreme Court requires action from Congress and the American people—not another lecture about Thomas Paine from the Chief Justice who oversees the Court’s corruption.
Read the full SCOTUSblog coverage: Chief Justice’s year-end report goes back to basics