If you’re wondering who is chief justice of usa now, the answer hasn't changed in over two decades, but the man himself certainly has. John G. Roberts Jr. is the guy in the center chair. He’s been there since 2005, which, if you’re doing the math, means he’s outlasted four different presidential administrations and is currently working on his fifth.
He isn't just "the boss" of the Supreme Court; he's the 17th person in American history to hold the title. Honestly, it’s a bit of a wild run. When George W. Bush first nominated him, Roberts was seen as a young, reliable conservative who would steer the ship back to the right. Fast forward to 2026, and he’s often the one person both the far right and the far left are annoyed with at the same time. That’s kinda the definition of being in the middle, even if that "middle" has shifted significantly since he took the oath.
The Man in the Middle of a 6-3 World
People often get confused about how much power the Chief Justice actually has. He doesn't get two votes. His vote counts exactly the same as the newest member, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. But he’s the "Chief" for a reason. He manages the building, he runs the meetings where they decide which cases to take, and—most importantly—he decides who writes the official opinion of the Court if he's in the majority.
Right now, the Court is sitting at a 6-3 conservative supermajority. For a long time, Roberts was the "swing vote." If he sided with the liberals, the conservatives lost. But after Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined in 2020, that "swing" power mostly evaporated. There are now five other conservatives who can win a case without him.
✨ Don't miss: Why Every Tornado Warning MN Now Live Alert Demands Your Immediate Attention
Yet, in 2026, we’re still seeing Roberts try to play the institutionalist. He’s obsessed with the Court’s reputation. He basically hates the idea that people see the justices as "politicians in robes." Whether he’s succeeding at convincing the public of that is a whole other debate, but it’s definitely the lens through which he makes every single move.
What’s on the Roberts Docket Lately?
You can’t really understand who the Chief Justice is without looking at what he’s actually doing. Just this month, in January 2026, the Roberts Court is staring down some massive cases. We’re talking about everything from the legality of state-level bans on certain medical treatments to high-stakes arguments about birthright citizenship.
Specifically, the Court is currently grappling with:
🔗 Read more: Brian Walshe Trial Date: What Really Happened with the Verdict
- Administrative Power: Following the 2024 decision to overturn Chevron deference (which basically gave federal agencies power to interpret laws), Roberts is now overseeing the chaotic fallout of how much power "un-elected bureaucrats" actually have left.
- Presidential Immunity: After the landmark Trump v. United States ruling in 2024, Roberts has been the primary architect of the "official acts" vs. "unofficial acts" framework that is still being litigated in lower courts right now.
- Tech and Privacy: He’s surprisingly tech-savvy for a guy who reportedly prefers writing with a pen and paper. He’s been a lead voice on how the Fourth Amendment applies to things like geofence warrants and digital tracking.
The "Umpire" Who Sometimes Changes the Rules
During his confirmation hearing, Roberts famously said his job was just to "call balls and strikes" like an umpire.
It was a great soundbite. But any legal expert will tell you that the strike zone has changed a lot under his watch. Under the Roberts Court, we’ve seen the gutting of the Voting Rights Act (Shelby County), the end of Roe v. Wade (though he notably didn't want to go as far as his colleagues in that one), and the end of affirmative action in college admissions.
He’s a "minimalist" at heart. He usually prefers to take small steps rather than giant leaps. But when you’ve been on the bench for 20 years, those small steps eventually lead you to a completely different landscape.
💡 You might also like: How Old is CHRR? What People Get Wrong About the Ohio State Research Giant
Does he ever plan on retiring?
This is the question everyone in D.C. asks behind closed doors. John Roberts was born in 1955. He’s in his early 70s now. In Supreme Court years, that’s practically middle-aged. Justice Clarence Thomas is older. Justice Samuel Alito is older.
There’s no sign Roberts is going anywhere. He seems to genuinely love the job, or at least he feels a deep sense of duty to protect the branch of government he leads. Unlike some of his predecessors, he hasn't had major public health scares recently, though he has had a couple of falls in the past that made people nervous. For now, he’s the anchor.
Actionable Insights: How to Follow the Chief Justice
If you want to keep tabs on what the Chief Justice is actually doing—not just what the headlines say—here is how you do it:
- Read the "Year-End Report": Every New Year’s Eve, Roberts releases a report on the state of the judiciary. It’s usually a bit dry, but if you read between the lines, he’s usually sending a message to Congress or the President to "back off" or highlighting a specific issue like AI in the courts.
- Watch the "Grant" List: Every Monday morning when the Court is in session, they release an order list. If Roberts is interested in a case, it’ll show up here.
- Check the Assignments: When a big ruling comes out, look at who wrote it. If it’s a 6-3 ruling and Roberts didn't write it, it often means he’s trying to distance himself from the more aggressive rhetoric of the other conservatives.
Basically, the Chief Justice of the USA now is a man trying to hold a very polarized country together through a very polarized court. Whether he's a "moderate" or a "stealth radical" depends entirely on who you ask, but he remains the most powerful judge in the world.
To stay truly informed, you should keep an eye on the SCOTUS oral argument calendar for the 2025-2026 term. The upcoming decisions on election law and digital privacy will likely be written by Roberts himself as he attempts to keep the Court's "institutionalist" brand alive.