John Roberts says the court isn't radical — but the facts say otherwise

Chief Justice John Roberts made a rare public appearance last year to defend his Supreme Court colleagues from criticism that they were overturning decades-old precedent, according to CNN reporter John Fritze.

Roberts has sought to rebut accusations that the court is partisan, pointing to its record since the overturning of Roe v. Wade in 2022. However, Fritze examined Roberts' claims against the court's actions.

The court has overruled Humphrey's Executor, which protected federal employees from being fired by the president without cause; aspects of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which addressed discriminatory gerrymandering; and Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, which empowered federal agencies to interpret vague laws. The court also appears poised to overturn Employment Division v. Smith, which held that the First Amendment does not protect people engaged in illegal acts as part of religious activity.

Roberts stated that the court has not explicitly overturned more than two precedents per year. Fritze noted this is accurate when using a narrow definition of "overturning precedents."

"Those numbers don't account for instances in which the court has significantly departed from a precedent without explicitly overruling it," Fritze wrote. "In recent years, the conservative majority has also moved away from precedents involving religious freedom."

New York Times columnist Jamelle Bouie offered a broader critique of the court's direction. Bouie stated that the court is "acting as a super legislature: an unelected group of people who have taken it upon themselves to revise Congress's work."

Bouie pointed to the court's decisions on Reconstruction amendments, presidential power, corporate speech, and campaign finance as evidence of a consistent direction in prioritizing particular outcomes over textual analysis.