Roberts Says Public Outrage Over SCOTUS Rulings Is Often Just “Venting”
As backlash builds over 6–3 decisions on birthright rights and LGBTQ books, the Chief Justice says outrage is just “venting from people who lost.”
Chief Justice John Roberts defended the U.S. Supreme Court against growing public criticism on Saturday, calling some attacks “venting” driven by disappointment rather than legal error. He made the remarks during a judicial conference in North Carolina, according to a report by The Hill.
Rising Tensions Over the Court’s Authority
Speaking in a public conversation with Judge Albert Diaz of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, Roberts urged critics to focus on the law itself rather than outcomes they dislike. “It would be good if people appreciated it’s not the judge’s fault that a correct interpretation of the law meant that, no, you don’t get to do this,” he said.
He acknowledged that not all criticism is unwarranted. “If it’s an incorrect interpretation, the court of appeals may take a different view,” Roberts noted. But he emphasized that personal disappointment is not the same as legal grievance: “If it’s just venting because you lost, then that’s not terribly helpful.”
A Week of Contentious 6–3 Decisions
Roberts’ comments followed the end of a particularly charged Supreme Court term. In several 6–3 rulings along ideological lines, the Court:
Restricted nationwide injunctions, limiting the authority of district courts to issue sweeping rulings—a move with implications for executive actions such as President Trump’s second-term immigration orders.
Upheld Texas's age-verification law for adult websites, rejecting free speech challenges brought by digital rights groups.
Sided with parents seeking to opt out their children from public school curriculum that included LGBTQ+ themes, citing religious liberty concerns.
Roberts joined the majority in all three rulings, though he avoided discussing specific cases during the event.
Process Over Popularity
The Chief Justice pointed to a disconnect between public perception and judicial reasoning. “What they’re angry about is probably not that you applied the principle of ejusdem generis in a novel context,” he said. “It’s that they lost whatever they were looking for.”
He urged critics to separate emotion from legal interpretation, warning that sustained public outrage risks undermining the legitimacy of the Court’s role in a constitutional system.
Institutional Strain at Term’s End
Asked about the rush to deliver final rulings before recess, Roberts admitted the Court’s process had been unusually compressed. “Things were a little crunched toward the end this year,” he said, adding that they would “try to space it out a little better next year.”
His comments came as the Court concluded a term marked by deep ideological division and rising scrutiny. While Roberts avoided direct commentary on individual opinions, his remarks suggest continued concern for preserving judicial independence amid mounting political pressure.
