Most people think the Chief Justice of the United States is the boss of the Supreme Court. They aren't. Not really. In a legal sense, the Chief is just "first among equals." John Roberts has the same single vote as Elena Kagan or Brett Kavanaugh. He can’t fire them. He can’t tell them how to rule. He can’t even force them to change a single comma in a dissenting opinion.
It’s a weird job.
The position is actually pretty misunderstood by the general public, mostly because we see the black robes and the center seat and assume there’s a traditional corporate hierarchy at play. There isn’t. But that doesn’t mean the role is symbolic. Far from it. The Chief Justice of the United States holds the keys to the administrative kingdom of the entire federal judiciary, a massive system that stretches far beyond that marble building in D.C.
What the Chief Justice of the United States actually does all day
So, if they aren’t "the boss" of the other eight, what are they doing? First off, the title itself is specific. It’s not "Chief Justice of the Supreme Court." It’s "Chief Justice of the United States." That distinction matters because the job involves overseeing the Judicial Conference of the United States. This is the policy-making body for all federal courts. Think of it as the CEO of a company where the board of directors (the other justices) only weighs in on the big product launches (the cases), while the CEO handles the HR, the budgets, and the long-term infrastructure.
The Chief gets to decide who writes the opinion. This is huge.
When the Chief Justice of the United States is in the majority on a case, they choose which justice writes the official word of the Court. If you want a ruling to be narrow and quiet, you give it to a moderate. If you want it to be a sweeping, legacy-defining statement, you might write it yourself or give it to a more ideological ally. This is where the real power lies—the power of the pen.
🔗 Read more: Joseph Stalin Political Party: What Most People Get Wrong
Then there’s the "cert" pool and the "discuss list." Thousands of petitions hit the Court every year. The justices only hear about 60 to 80. The Chief has a massive hand in framing which cases even get a look. Honestly, it’s a lot of paperwork and a lot of diplomacy. You’re trying to herd eight high-IQ individuals who all have life tenure and very strong opinions. It’s like trying to lead a group of tenured professors who can’t be fired and don't particularly have to listen to you.
The Roberts Era and the "Swing" Myth
John Roberts has been the Chief Justice of the United States since 2005. For a long time, the media obsessed over him being the "swing vote." That was always a bit of a simplification. Roberts is a conservative. He has always been a conservative. However, he’s a conservative who cares deeply about the "institutional legitimacy" of the Court. He hates the idea of the Supreme Court looking like a "Junior Congress."
Because of that, he’s sometimes sided with the liberal wing—most famously in NFIB v. Sebelius, the case that saved the Affordable Care Act. He didn’t do it because he loved the law. He did it because he felt the legal justification for the individual mandate could be squeezed into the government’s taxing power, and striking it down would have been a political earthquake the Court wasn't ready for.
Today, the 6-3 conservative supermajority has actually stripped the Chief Justice of the United States of some of his "swing" power. He’s no longer the median vote. If the five other conservatives want to go further than Roberts does—like they did in Dobbs, the case that overturned Roe v. Wade—they can just ignore him. Roberts actually wrote a concurring opinion in Dobbs saying he wanted to uphold the Mississippi law but not fully overturn Roe. He was outvoted. It was a rare moment where the "Chief" was left standing on an island.
How you actually get the job
It’s a lifetime appointment. You know this. But the process is brutal. The President nominates, and the Senate confirms. Historically, it wasn't always this televised circus. In the early days, sometimes people were confirmed the same day they were nominated. Now? It’s a months-long deep dive into every law review article you wrote in your 20s.
💡 You might also like: Typhoon Tip and the Largest Hurricane on Record: Why Size Actually Matters
- The Vetting: The FBI digs into your past.
- The Hearings: You sit in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee and try to say as little as possible while sounding incredibly smart.
- The Vote: You need a simple majority, but getting there is a minefield of modern tribal politics.
There’s no requirement to be a judge first. You don’t even have to be a lawyer, technically, though the Senate would never confirm someone who wasn't. William Howard Taft is the only person to have been both President and Chief Justice of the United States. Imagine that career path. That's a lot of pressure.
The stuff nobody talks about: The FISC and the Impeachment
The Chief Justice of the United States has some weird "side quests" that don't get much press. For instance, they appoint the judges to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC). These are the judges who handle the highly classified requests for wiretaps in national security cases. It’s a massive amount of unilateral power that stays almost entirely in the shadows.
Also, if the President of the United States is impeached and goes to trial in the Senate, the Chief Justice presides over the trial. We saw John Roberts do this twice for Donald Trump’s trials. He basically acts as a moderator. He’s not there to rule on the President's guilt; he’s there to make sure the rules of the Senate are followed. It’s a weirdly passive role for the highest judge in the land. He mostly just sits there while the Senators argue.
Why it’s harder than it looks
You're basically the face of an entire branch of government. When people are mad at the legal system, they look at the Chief Justice of the United States. If there's a leak—like the Dobbs draft leak—it’s the Chief’s job to find the "traitor." If the public's trust in the Court hits an all-time low, it’s the Chief who has to write the annual report trying to convince everyone that the system is still working.
The weight of history is heavy. Every Chief wants to leave the Court "stronger" than they found it. But in a polarized country, "stronger" is a matter of perspective. One person's principled ruling is another person's judicial activism.
📖 Related: Melissa Calhoun Satellite High Teacher Dismissal: What Really Happened
John Marshall is usually considered the most influential Chief Justice of the United States. He’s the one who basically "invented" the power of judicial review in Marbury v. Madison. Before him, the Court was sort of the weak sibling of the government. He made it a co-equal branch. Every Chief since then has been living in his shadow, trying to maintain that balance.
The transition from "Associate" to "Chief"
Sometimes, a President will "elevate" a sitting Associate Justice to the role of Chief. This happened with William Rehnquist. Other times, they bring in someone from the outside, like Roberts. Bringing in an outsider can be tricky because you're suddenly the "leader" of people who have been there for twenty years. It requires a lot of lunch-table diplomacy.
Actionable Insights for Following the Court
If you want to actually understand how the Chief Justice of the United States is shaping the law, don't just read the headlines. Headlines are usually sensationalized.
- Read the "Syllabus": When a Supreme Court opinion drops, the first few pages are a summary called the syllabus. It’s not the official law, but it tells you exactly what happened and who voted where.
- Watch the Assignments: Look at who the Chief assigns to write the big opinions. If Roberts keeps a case for himself, it means he wants to control the narrative. If he gives it to a junior justice, he might be trying to build their "brand" or he thinks the case is a boring technicality.
- Check the "Shadow Docket": A lot of the Court’s work happens on the "emergency" or "shadow" docket—orders that come out without full briefings or oral arguments. The Chief often uses these to manage lower courts before a case even reaches the Supreme Court.
- Follow the Annual Report: Every December 31st, the Chief Justice of the United States releases a year-end report. Most people ignore it because it's full of stats about caseloads, but it's where the Chief usually drops hints about his concerns regarding court funding, security, or ethics.
The role isn't going anywhere, and it isn't getting any easier. Whether it's John Roberts or whoever comes next, the Chief Justice of the United States remains the most powerful individual in the American legal system—not because they can dictate the law, but because they set the stage on which the law is written. It's a game of chess, not a game of thrones. Understanding the difference is the first step to actually getting how Washington works.
Next Steps for Deepening Your Knowledge
To truly grasp the influence of this office, your next move should be to track the order of seniorities during the next oral argument session. This determines the order in which justices speak and vote in conference, a process managed strictly by the Chief. Additionally, monitor the Judicial Conference's recent statements on judicial security and ethics reforms; these are the primary areas where the Chief exerts direct administrative control over the thousands of federal judges across the country. Observing these non-adjudicatory actions provides a much clearer picture of the Chief's long-term impact on the American "third branch" of government.