John Roberts doesn't have a boss. Not technically. When the Chief Justice of the United States walks into the Supreme Court building at 1 First Street NE, he is—by law and tradition—the highest-ranking judicial officer in the country. But here's the kicker: his vote counts exactly the same as the newest Associate Justice. He's basically the captain of a team where he can't actually trade anyone or force them to run laps.
It’s a weird job.
People usually assume the Chief Justice is a sort of "Supreme Court CEO." They think he can dictate which cases are heard or how the others should vote. Honestly? That couldn't be further from the truth. While the title carries immense prestige, the actual power of the Chief Justice of the United States is a mix of administrative drudgery, symbolic leadership, and the subtle art of persuasion. If he wants to lead the law in a certain direction, he has to do it through the strength of his writing and the vibes in the conference room.
The "First Among Equals" Headache
The term "First Among Equals" (Primus Inter Pares) sounds fancy, but in the context of the Supreme Court, it’s a bit of a logistical nightmare. The Chief is responsible for the entire federal judiciary. We’re talking about over 2,000 federal judges, thousands of employees, and a massive budget.
When things go wrong in a district court in Idaho, it eventually lands on his desk.
One of the most significant, yet overlooked, powers of the Chief Justice of the United States is the power of assignment. When the Court finishes hearing oral arguments, the justices meet in total secrecy to vote. No clerks. No assistants. Just nine people in a room. If the Chief is in the majority, he gets to decide who writes the official opinion of the Court. This is huge. If he wants a narrow, quiet ruling, he might keep it for himself or give it to a moderate. If he wants a sweeping, landscape-shifting decision, he picks a justice with a sharper pen.
But if he’s in the minority? He loses that power entirely. The most senior justice in the majority gets to make the call. This is why you’ll sometimes see the Chief Justice vote with a side you didn't expect; occasionally, it's a strategic move to keep control of the narrative.
📖 Related: Trump New Gun Laws: What Most People Get Wrong
John Roberts and the "Roberts Court" Era
We name eras of the court after the person sitting in the middle chair. Right now, we are firmly in the era of John Roberts, who took the oath in 2005. He was young for the job—only 50. Now, he’s one of the longest-serving members.
The Roberts Court has been defined by a massive shift toward a 6-3 conservative supermajority. This has actually made the Chief's life a lot harder. For years, Roberts was the "median justice." He was the swing vote. If you wanted to win a case, you had to convince John Roberts. He loved that. It gave him the ability to "split the baby," issuing rulings that moved the needle without causing a total social earthquake.
Think back to the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) ruling in NFIB v. Sebelius. Roberts shocked everyone. He basically saved the law by reclassifying the individual mandate as a tax. Conservatives were furious. Liberals were relieved but confused. That was classic Roberts—protecting the institution’s reputation by avoiding a pure partisan blowup.
Now? With five other conservatives often willing to go much further than he is, the Chief Justice of the United States sometimes finds himself in the "liberal" wing of a dissent, even though he's a lifelong conservative. He’s obsessed with the Court’s legacy. He hates the idea that people see the justices as "politicians in robes."
The Administrative Grind No One Talks About
While the media focuses on the big constitutional battles, the Chief is busy being a bureaucrat. He presides over the Judicial Conference of the United States. He also gets to appoint the judges who sit on the FISA Court (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court). These are the judges who approve top-secret wiretaps. It’s an insane amount of unilateral power that barely anyone mentions in the news.
He also presides over impeachment trials in the Senate. John Roberts had to do this twice for Donald Trump. You could tell by the look on his face he’d rather have been anywhere else. He had to sit there for hours, listening to senators argue, while maintaining a completely neutral, almost robotic expression.
👉 See also: Why Every Tornado Warning MN Now Live Alert Demands Your Immediate Attention
It’s a lonely spot.
Why the "Of the United States" Part Actually Matters
You’ll notice I keep saying Chief Justice of the United States, not "Chief Justice of the Supreme Court." That’s because his jurisdiction isn't just that one marble building. He represents the entire branch of government. When the President gives the State of the Union, the Chief is there representing the Third Branch.
He is the personification of the rule of law.
When a Chief Justice dies or retires, it’s a seismic event. Unlike associate justices, who can be replaced with somewhat less fanfare, the Chief sets the tone for an entire generation. When William Rehnquist passed away, the transition to Roberts changed the "vibe" of the court overnight. Rehnquist was a bit more of a direct, blunt force; Roberts is a strategist who plays the long game.
Misconceptions About the Big Chair
Let's clear some things up.
First, the Chief Justice cannot "fire" another justice. They are there for life (or "during good behavior"). Short of impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate—which has never actually happened to a Supreme Court justice—they stay as long as they want.
✨ Don't miss: Brian Walshe Trial Date: What Really Happened with the Verdict
Second, the Chief doesn't have a "veto." If the other eight justices want to go a certain way, the Chief is just a passenger. He can write a blistering dissent, sure, but it doesn't change the law of the land.
Third, the pay isn't as high as you'd think. As of 2024, the Chief Justice earns about $298,500. While that's a lot of money to most people, he could easily make $5 million a year at a top-tier law firm in D.C. You don't take this job for the paycheck. You take it for the history books.
The Future of the Role
The Chief Justice of the United States is currently facing a massive crisis of public confidence. Poll numbers for the Court are at historic lows. Between ethical scandals involving travel and gifts, and controversial rulings on abortion and gun rights, the "institutionalist" approach Roberts loves is under fire.
The next few years will define whether the Chief can actually "steer the ship" or if he’s just a figurehead for a court that has moved beyond his control. He’s trying to balance the demands of a conservative majority with the need for the public to actually respect the Court’s decisions. It’s a tightrope walk over a volcano.
What You Should Do Next
If you want to actually understand how the Chief Justice of the United States influences your daily life, stop reading the 24-hour news cycle and do these three things:
- Read the "Syllabus" of a recent 5-4 or 6-3 decision. This is the summary at the top of the ruling. Look specifically for who wrote it. If it wasn't Roberts, check his dissent or his concurrence. It will show you exactly where he disagrees with the more "extreme" wings of the court.
- Watch a few minutes of oral arguments on the Supreme Court's website. Pay attention to how Roberts manages the clock. He is the "referee." He cuts people off, moves the conversation along, and tries to keep things civil. It’s a masterclass in soft power.
- Look up the "Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary." Roberts writes this every December. It’s usually pretty dry, but if you read between the lines, he often hides subtle messages to Congress or the public about the state of American justice.
Understanding the Chief Justice isn't about memorizing statutes. It’s about understanding human psychology and the weight of history. The man in the center chair knows that every word he writes might be quoted 200 years from now. That’s a heavy burden for anyone, even someone with a life appointment.