Bonus 115: The Chief Justice's Tone-Deaf Year-End Report

There's a rich (and ongoing) debate over the relationship between public criticism of the courts and judicial independence. Chief Justice Roberts's annual missive missed just about all of the nuance.

Happy New Year! And welcome back to the weekly bonus content for “One First.” Although Monday’s regular newsletter will remain free for as long as I’m able to do this, much of the bonus content is behind a paywall as an added incentive for those who are willing and able to support the work that goes into putting this newsletter together every week. I’m grateful to those of you who are already paid subscribers, and hope that those of you who aren’t will consider a paid subscription if and when your circumstances permit:

This week’s bonus issue was prompted by the Chief Justice’s year-end report, which dropped, like clockwork, at 6 p.m. on New Year’s Eve. As I’ve noted before, the year-end report used to be the Chief Justice’s annual opportunity to reflect upon the Court’s relationship with the other branches—and to make specific recommendations to Congress for the year ahead. Chief Justice Roberts stopped asking for things around 2009—after which the report had turned largely into annual exercises in saying as little as possible. But the 2024 year-end report has a much sharper message—with the Chief Justice using his bully pulpit to rail, quite aggressively, against four types of attacks on judicial independence: “(1) violence, (2) intimidation, (3) disinformation, and (4) threats to defy lawfully entered judgments.”

What is especially striking about the Chief Justice’s report is that it comes in the midst of an ongoing public debate over the relationship between public criticism of the courts and judicial independence. Indeed, this very debate was supposed to be the focus of the Federalist Society panel in which I participated in November—which turned into … something else. But the Chief Justice’s report not only fails to even acknowledge the public discourse; it takes a position that is either wholly indifferent or remarkably oblivious to it—offering a remarkably un-nuanced view of when criticism crosses the line into “illegitimate activity.” In the process, the report also neglects to acknowledge what is, in my view, an even greater threat to judicial independence today: the continuing erosion of public faith in the courts that’s reflected in (but not caused by) much of the good-faith criticism that is out there. In those respects, at least, it’s a remarkably tone-deaf missive from someone who ought to know better.

For those who are not paid subscribers, the next free installment of the newsletter will drop on Monday morning. For those who are, please read on.