The question of whether John Roberts is the "worst" Supreme Court Chief Justice is subjective and depends on how one evaluates judicial performance, which can involve legal reasoning, ideological alignment, impact on the law, or institutional leadership. Critics and supporters alike point to specific decisions, his judicial philosophy, and the broader context of his tenure to argue their case. Below, I’ll outline the main arguments for and against this claim, drawing on various perspectives, including those from the provided sources, while critically examining the narratives.

### Arguments Criticizing John Roberts as Among the Worst Chief Justices

1. **Overseeing a Polarized and Controversial Court**:
- Critics argue that under Roberts’ leadership since 2005, the Supreme Court has become increasingly politicized, with public approval dropping to historic lows (e.g., 47% favorable opinion in a 2023 Pew Research Center survey). Decisions like *Citizens United v. FEC* (2010), *Shelby County v. Holder* (2013), *Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization* (2022), and the presidential immunity ruling in *Trump v. United States* (2024) are cited as eroding public trust by favoring corporate interests, weakening civil rights protections, and expanding executive power.[](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jul/03/john-roberts-trump-j-michael-luttig-supreme-court)[](https://www.publicnotice.co/p/john-roberts-worst-chief-justice-of-all-time)[](https://www.courthousenews.com/roberts-renews-his-grip-on-the-court-for-better-or-worse/)
- Commentators like Lisa Needham assert that Roberts has “overseen the wholesale corruption and capture of the Supreme Court,” pointing to a conservative shift that dismantles civil rights, protects powerful interests, and abandons legal consistency. For example, the *Shelby County* decision, which struck down key provisions of the Voting Rights Act, is criticized for lacking a constitutional basis and enabling voter suppression.[](https://www.publicnotice.co/p/john-roberts-worst-chief-justice-of-all-time)[](https://prospect.org/justice/five-worst-roberts-court-rulings/)
- The presidential immunity ruling is particularly contentious, with critics like law professor Eric Segall arguing it creates a “law-free zone” for presidents, potentially enabling authoritarianism. Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent in that case warned of a “king-maker” precedent, a sentiment echoed by those who see Roberts as complicit in undermining democracy.[](https://www.courthousenews.com/roberts-renews-his-grip-on-the-court-for-better-or-worse/)

2. **Enabling Trump’s Agenda**:
- Roberts is accused of facilitating Donald Trump’s executive overreach, particularly through rulings like the presidential immunity decision and the upholding of the “Muslim ban” in *Trump v. Hawaii* (2018). Critics argue these decisions reflect a failure to check the executive branch, with some calling Roberts’ Court a “rubber stamp” for Trump’s policies.[](https://www.publicnotice.co/p/john-roberts-worst-chief-justice-of-all-time)[](https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/07/supreme-court-roberts-trump-dictator/683576/)
- Posts on X and articles, such as one from *The Atlantic*, claim Roberts has built a “proto-authoritarian canon,” reshaping the presidency into an unchecked institution. This critique is amplified by his perceived inaction against Trump’s attacks on the judiciary, with conservative former judge J. Michael Luttig expressing disappointment in Roberts’ “unforgivable reticence.”[](https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/07/supreme-court-roberts-trump-dictator/683576/)[](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jul/03/john-roberts-trump-j-michael-luttig-supreme-court)

3. **Ethical and Institutional Failures**:
- Roberts has been criticized for not enforcing stricter ethics rules amid scandals involving justices like Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. Lisa Graves, host of the *Grave Injustice* podcast, argues that Roberts has blocked Senate efforts to hold the Court accountable, contributing to its declining legitimacy.[](https://www.thedailybeast.com/john-roberts-may-be-the-worst-chief-justice-in-supreme-court-history/)
- His refusal to address conflicts of interest, such as justices not recusing themselves from cases with personal ties, has fueled perceptions of corruption.[](https://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/1d2ku8h/john_roberts_may_be_the_worst_chief_justice_in/)

4. **Comparison to Historically “Bad” Justices**:
- Some compare Roberts unfavorably to Chief Justice Roger Taney, who authored the infamous *Dred Scott v. Sandford* (1857) decision, widely regarded as the Court’s nadir for denying citizenship to Black Americans. Critics argue that while Taney’s single decision was catastrophic, Roberts’ cumulative impact—through rulings like *Citizens United*, *Shelby County*, and *Dobbs*—may cause longer-lasting harm due to their broad scope and enduring precedent. For instance, a Reddit user noted that *Dred Scott* was overturned within a decade, whereas Roberts’ decisions may persist for decades.[](https://www.publicnotice.co/p/john-roberts-worst-chief-justice-of-all-time)[](https://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/1d2ku8h/john_roberts_may_be_the_worst_chief_justice_in/)[](https://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/1d2ku8h/john_roberts_may_be_the_worst_chief_justice_in/)

5. **Public Sentiment on X**:
- Posts on X reflect strong negative sentiment, with users like @marcyrw calling Roberts the “worst Chief Justice in American history” for decisions that “destroyed the United States” by enabling corporate influence, gutting voting rights, and granting presidential immunity. Others, like @NormOrnstein, argue the immunity ruling alone makes him worse than Taney. These reflect a broader narrative among some progressives that Roberts’ Court prioritizes “monied interests” over ordinary citizens.

### Arguments Defending John Roberts

1. **Judicial Restraint and Institutionalism**:
- Roberts has described himself as an institutionalist, emphasizing judicial independence and restraint. His famous analogy during his 2005 confirmation hearing—“It’s my job to call balls and strikes, and not to pitch or bat”—suggests a commitment to neutrality. Supporters argue he has tried to maintain the Court’s legitimacy by seeking consensus and avoiding overtly partisan rulings. For example, in *National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius* (2012), he upheld most of the Affordable Care Act, siding with liberal justices to preserve a major Democratic policy.[](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Roberts)[](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Roberts)

2. **Navigating a Divided Court**:
- As Chief Justice, Roberts has limited formal power, as he cannot “fire” or “cut the pay” of colleagues, relying instead on persuasion. Supporters argue he faces a challenging conservative majority, with justices like Alito and Thomas pushing a more aggressive agenda. His ability to occasionally forge coalitions, as in the Alabama voting rights case, demonstrates skill in managing a polarized bench.[](https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/02/politics/john-roberts-assignment-power-trump-barrett)[](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/03/opinion/john-roberts-supreme-court.html)
- His strategic assignment of opinions, such as giving the birthright citizenship ruling to Justice Amy Coney Barrett, has been seen as an attempt to temper ideological perceptions of the Court.[](https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/02/politics/john-roberts-assignment-power-trump-barrett)

3. **Defending Judicial Independence**:
- Roberts has publicly defended the judiciary against political attacks, notably in 2018 when he rebuked Trump’s criticism of an “Obama judge,” stating, “We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges.” In 2025, he warned against heated rhetoric targeting judges, citing threats of violence, such as a 2022 assassination attempt on Justice Brett Kavanaugh. These actions suggest a commitment to protecting the judiciary’s role, even if his responses are seen as selective.[](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jul/03/john-roberts-trump-j-michael-luttig-supreme-court)[](https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/28/us/chief-justice-roberts-threats.html)[](https://www.politico.com/news/2025/06/28/chief-justice-roberts-speech-violence-00431332)

4. **Historical Context**:
- Defenders argue that labeling Roberts the “worst” ignores the context of past justices. Taney’s *Dred Scott* decision contributed to the Civil War, a level of harm unmatched by Roberts’ rulings. Other justices, like Melville Fuller (1888–1910), oversaw decisions like *Plessy v. Ferguson* (1896), which upheld segregation. Roberts’ critics often focus on ideological disagreements rather than objective measures of judicial failure, and his tenure includes significant decisions favoring progressive causes, like upholding the Affordable Care Act.[](https://www.publicnotice.co/p/john-roberts-worst-chief-justice-of-all-time)[](https://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/1d2ku8h/john_roberts_may_be_the_worst_chief_justice_in/)

5. **Legal Craftsmanship**:
- Some praise Roberts’ legal writing and principled approach, particularly when defending the rule of law. For instance, his opinion in *Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid* (2021) is lauded for its clarity in striking down a California regulation as a “taking” without compensation. His ability to distill complex principles, such as in *Parents Involved v. Seattle* (2007) with the line “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race,” is seen as a high point of judicial rhetoric.[](https://fedsoc.org/commentary/fedsoc-blog/the-chief-justice-at-his-best-and-worst)[](https://fedsoc.org/commentary/fedsoc-blog/the-chief-justice-at-his-best-and-worst)

### Critical Examination of the Narrative

- **Subjectivity of “Worst”**: The term “worst” is inherently subjective, often reflecting ideological bias. Progressive critics dominate the negative narrative, focusing on decisions that align with conservative outcomes, while conservatives may view Roberts as insufficiently ideological due to rulings like *NFIB v. Sebelius*. Comparing Roberts to Taney oversimplifies historical context; *Dred Scott* had immediate, catastrophic consequences, whereas Roberts’ rulings operate in a modern, complex legal landscape.[](https://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/1d2ku8h/john_roberts_may_be_the_worst_chief_justice_in/)
- **Role of the Chief Justice**: Critics may overstate Roberts’ influence. As Chief Justice, he assigns opinions when in the majority but cannot dictate outcomes. The Court’s conservative shift reflects the appointments of Presidents Bush and Trump, not solely Roberts’ leadership. Blaming him for the Court’s direction ignores the broader political dynamics of judicial appointments.[](https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/02/politics/john-roberts-assignment-power-trump-barrett)
- **Public Perception vs. Legal Impact**: The Court’s low approval ratings and social media vitriol (e.g., X posts calling Roberts a “disgrace”) may reflect public frustration with polarizing issues rather than Roberts’ personal failings. His defenders argue that criticism often stems from losing parties “venting” rather than substantive legal critique.[](https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5375065-john-roberts-supreme-court-criticism/)
- **Long-Term Legacy**: Roberts’ legacy is not yet settled. While critics predict lasting damage from decisions like *Dobbs* or the immunity ruling, supporters note that his incremental approach in some cases may mitigate long-term polarization. Historical judgments often evolve; Taney’s reputation was cemented by a single decision, while Roberts’ tenure is multifaceted.[](https://www.courthousenews.com/roberts-renews-his-grip-on-the-court-for-better-or-worse/)

### Conclusion

Whether John Roberts is the “worst” Chief Justice depends on one’s criteria. Critics, supported by sources like *Public Notice* and *The Atlantic*, argue that his leadership has enabled a conservative, anti-democratic shift, citing rulings that weaken civil rights, empower corporations, and bolster executive authority. Public sentiment on platforms like X amplifies this view, with some calling him worse than Taney. However, defenders highlight his institutionalist approach, efforts to maintain judicial independence, and occasional moderate rulings, arguing that he navigates a polarized Court with limited power. Compared to historical figures like Taney, whose *Dred Scott* decision had immediate devastating effects, Roberts’ impact is broader but less singularly catastrophic.[](https://www.publicnotice.co/p/john-roberts-worst-chief-justice-of-all-time)[](https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/07/supreme-court-roberts-trump-dictator/683576/)[](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Roberts)

Ultimately, the label “worst” reflects ideological frustration as much as objective assessment. Roberts’ tenure is marked by significant controversy, but his defenders argue he operates within the constraints of a deeply divided Court and society. For a definitive judgment, history will need to weigh his full record against the evolving consequences of his decisions. If you’d like me to dive deeper into specific cases or perspectives, let me know!

He will be blamed for the loss of our constitutional law and democracy.

Roberts, Thomas, Alito, should be damned to hell.

BTW later on O’Conner voiced regret over her tie breaking ruling in bush v Gore.