Chief Justice John Roberts makes rare public appearance, defends judicial independence

Chief Justice John Roberts made a rare public appearance Wednesday night, speaking at a so-called fireside chat held in celebration of the 125th anniversary of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York in Buffalo, New York.

At the event, Roberts doubled down on his statement rebuking President Donald Trump's call to impeach Judge James Boasberg, who had ruled against the administration's immigration actions in March.

"Well, I've already spoken to that and, you know, impeachment is not how you register disagreement with decisions," Roberts told Judge Lawrence Vilardo of the WDNY.

"That's what we're there for," Roberts continued, referencing the role of the Supreme Court of the United States.

Speaking in front of hundreds of judges, lawyers and other legal professionals, Roberts also responded to criticisms of the Supreme Court -- talking about the practical consequences of court decisions and emphasizing the importance of judiciary independence.

Roberts called judiciary independence "central" — describing it as the "only real political science innovation" in the Constitution.

"The judiciary is a co-equal branch of government, separate from the others, with the authority to interpret the Constitution as law and strike down, obviously, acts of Congress or acts of the president," he said.

"Its job is to obviously decide cases, but in the course of that, check the excesses of Congress or of the executive, and that does require degree of independence."

When Vilardo asked about the process of overturning decisions -- referencing the 2022 ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization that overturned Roe v. Wade -- Roberts defended the occasional necessity of overturning decisions while claiming that fewer decisions have been overturned in recent years.

"We take fewer cases now than they did before, but the number of important ones that would be subject overruling are the same," he said. "So a lot of people talk as if we're overruling a lot more. It's the lowest it's been since the '50s."

"The idea that it's invariably a bad thing to overrule precedent is, I think, quite mistaken," he said, referencing the fact that Brown v. Board of Education overturned precedent in 1954, finding school segregation unconstitutional. "At the same time, you can't do it willy-nilly."

"The law is supposed to be predictable," he said, explaining that special justification is needed to overrule a case -- it doesn't occur because "you just happen to think it's wrong."

Roberts also maintained that "real-life practical consequences" are not something he thinks about when making decisions – instead focusing on interpreting the law.

"I think it's more important to figure out what the people who wrote the law had in mind and what they meant by the words they used, rather than think, 'What is this type of legislation for?' Because then, you know, the interpretation ... flip-flops," he continued.

He also addressed the importance of judiciary independence, suggesting judiciary independence is the "only real political science innovation" in the U.S. Constitution.

"In our Constitution, judges and the judiciary is a co-equal branch of government, separate from the others with the authority to interpret the Constitution as law and strike down, obviously, acts of Congress or acts of, of the president. and that innovation doesn't work if it's not the judiciary is not independent," he said.

Explaining how he decides to take on cases, Roberts said, "We're not a court of error in the sense that we correct mistakes. So what we're looking for are conflicting decisions on the same law that have to be fixed."

Asked if he thinks about retirement, he said, "I still feel pretty healthy" but acknowledged he'd do so if his health declines.

Roberts and Vilardo, both Buffalo natives and graduates of Harvard Law School, also talked about their upbringing, their friendship of almost 50 years and their careers in law.

Ahead of the fireside chat on Wednesday, WDNY's Chief Judge Elizabeth Wolford spoke to reporters about Trump's attacks on district judges and whether that has led to an escalation in threats against them.

"Judicial safety, judicial security, is something that we're always cognizant of, and we need to be aware of our surroundings -- and hopefully people understand that judges are just like human beings," Wolford said.

"We're just trying to do our jobs, do the best that we can to try to provide equal justice for all, and if you disagree with judges at the district court level, they can always appeal our decisions," she continued.

Asked about the role of district courts when numerous challenges against the Trump administration are taking place at federal courts, Wolford said, "The role of district courts is the same now as it has ever been, and the role of district courts is to uphold the rule of law -- to uphold the Constitution and provide equal justice for all. And it doesn't matter who is in the White House when the district courts, or any courts, are trying to do the best job that we can."