(Reuters) -John Roberts served for two decades as a senior judge in the United States, at the time the Supreme Court dramatically moved American law to the right.
Here, the chronological order in the dozens of judgments that the court decides, as Roberts, 70, was sworn as the leader of the highest US judicial institution in 2005. September 29th.
Colombian County V. Heller (2008)
The court ruled that Americans were entitled to a second amendment to the US Constitution that they had firearms in their homes, in decisions that are expanding weapons. The 5-4 decision written by Judge Antonin Scalia and created by the Conservative judges, abolished the Colombian County ban on manual weapons to combat firearm violence. Scalia rejected the view that the second amendment to protect the right to hold and carry the weapons applies only to the weapons ownership of the service, which this provision states as a “well -regulated militia”. Court 2010 and 2022 Made decisions that further expanded the rights of weapons.
“Citizens United V.” Federal Electoral Commission (2010)
The court, by referring to the rights of freedom in accordance with the first amendment to the Constitution, ruled that the Government may not limit corporations in the political election. The 5-4 decision created by Judge Anthony Kennedy and joined the Conservatives of the Court, declared invalid long-term campaign funding boundaries and allowed corporations and other external groups such as trade unions to spend unlimited amounts of money on elections. The court annulled his two precedents since 1990 and 2003. This decision led to a huge increase in political expenses from external groups and increased the influence of rich supporters, corporations and special interest groups. Kennedy wrote: “If the first amendment has some force, it prohibits Congress to punish or imprison citizens or citizens’ associations for simply engaging in political language.”
National Federation of Independent Business V. Sebelius (2012)
The court approved the 2010 The lawfulness of the Law on Acquisition, a law adopted by Congress, which allowed millions of previously uninsured Americans to enter health care. The law known as Obamacare was the achievement of internal policy of President Barack Obama. Roberts wrote a 5-4 decision by joining four court liberal judges. Roberts wrote that the mandate of the law that most Americans would receive insurance or pay a fine, the Congress government allowed taxes set by the Constitution. “Because the Constitution allows such a tax, it is not our role that is to ban or convey its wisdom or honesty,” Roberts wrote. The court supported Obamacare and made subsequent decisions, including further legal challenges.
Shelby County V. Holder (2013)
Before the voting laws amended, the court completed the claim for the US states, which were found to have racial discrimination. In doing so, he accepted the main 1965 Act. Part of the voting rights law, which banned voting on racial discrimination. The 5-4 ruling created by Roberts and the Conservatives ruled by the court found that Congress used outdated facts and continued to translate nine states, mainly in the south, to obtain federal approval to changes in voting rules affecting blacks and other minorities. “Our country has changed, and although any racial discrimination in voting is too much, the congress must ensure that the laws it will adopt to resolve the problem means current conditions,” Roberts wrote.
OBERGEFELL V. Hodges (2015)
The court recognized the constitutional right to marry the same sex couples by legalizing gay marriages across the country. The court ordered 5-4 when Kennedy joined four liberal members that the Constitutional proper process and equal security guarantees mean that states cannot ban same-sex marriages. Kennedy wrote that gays intending to marry “ask for equal dignity in the eyes of laws. The Constitution gives them that right.” Kennedy added: “Without recognition, stability and predictability of marriage offers, their children are experiencing a stigma to get to know their families somehow smaller.” Roberts disagreed. “What do we think we are?” Roberts wrote, calling the decision “by law, not a legal decision”.
Bostok V. Clayton County (2020)
The court ruled that the federal law prohibiting discrimination in the workplace protects gay and transgender staff. Two conservative judges joined four court liberals: Roberts and Neil Gorsucho, who wrote a ruling. The court ruled that gays and transsexuals were protected in 1964. Title VII of the Civil Rights Law, which prevents employers from discrimination against employees by sex, as well as race, color, national origin and religion.
Dobbs V. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022)
The court abolished its 1973. Roe before Wade’s ruling, which recognized the woman’s constitutional right to abortion. The court, in making a 6-3 decision written by Judge Samuel Alitas and was ruled by a conservative majority, supported the Mississippi Law, which banned abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy. The vote was 5-4 to eliminate Roe when Roberts wrote separately to say that he would comply with the law without eliminating Roe’s precedent. This ruling has led many states to ban or restrict abortions. “Roe was extremely wrong from the beginning. Her reasoning was extremely weak and the decision had the effects of harm,” Alit wrote.
Kennedy V. Bremerton School District (2022)
The court ruled that the district of the Washington State State School violated the rights of a Christian secondary school football coach who was suspended because of the refusal to stop prayers with players after playing after games. It was one of many Roberts court decisions expanding religious rights. As the religious rights of government workers expanded, the judges interacted with the coach. The author of Judge Neil Gorsuch 6-3 and the judgment of the Conservatives controlled by the court ruled that the coach’s actions were protected by his first amendment, which protects free language and religious expression.
Students for honest admission V. Harvard (2023)
Students for honest admission V. North Carolina University (2023)
The court abolished racing conscious admission programs at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina, rejecting a positive action policy for a long time used to increase the number of students of black, Spanish and other underdeveloped minorities in American towns. Roberts wrote that students’ admission programs, in which the applicant’s time was time -consuming in ways such as Harvard and the UN, violated the Constitution’s promise of uniform protection. Conservatives made decisions 6-3 against the UN and 6-2 against Harvard. Roberts wrote that the student “must be treated in the light of his or her experience as a person, not by race.”
Loper Bright Enterprises V. Raimondo (2024)
The court struck a major blow to the federal regulatory power by annulment of 1984. The 6-3 decision written by Roberts was one of the many decisions made by conservative judges who have been overwhelmed by federal agencies. The interrupted precedent, which was attended by the oil company Chevron, urged the judges to postpone the interpretations of federal agencies in US law, considered to be ambiguous – doctrine called “Chevron” respect. Roberts wrote: “The courts must enforce their independent decision by deciding whether the agency was in its own law.”
Brief V. United States (2024)
The court ruled on Donald Trump, having ruled that presidents had immunity from prosecution for official actions. Roberts wrote a 6-3 ruling to which other court conservatives joined. In order to recover the Presidency, Trump challenged the Federal indictment of his actions aimed at annulment of his 2020. Loss of election to democrat Joe Biden. Recognizing the broad immunity of Trump, Roberts mentioned that the President “fearless and correctly” would perform his office, without the threat of prosecution. Roberts wrote that such immunity is required in the light of the US constitutional structure that distinguishes the authorities between the Government Executive, the legislative and judicial department. The charges of the Trump were later abolished and he won in 2024. Election.
United States V. Skmetti (2025)
The court confirmed the prohibition of Tennessee’s prohibition on gender medical care for transgender minors. The 6-3 ruling created by Roberts and the Conservative judges concluded that the prohibition did not violate the constitutional language of the same protection. Tennessee laws have banned treatments such as puberty blockers and hormones in people under 18 years of age with gender dysphoria, a clinical diagnosis due to severe suffering, which can result from incompatibility between a person’s sexual identity and gender. Roberts wrote: “Tennessis concluded that there is a debate among medical experts on risk and benefits related to puberty blockers and hormone administration to treat gender dysphoria, gender identity disorder and gender incompatibility.”
(Formed by Jan Wolfe in Washington; edited Will Dunham)