The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Chief Justice Roberts issued his fourth statement respecting the denial of certiorari
And the Chief name-dropped "President Obama"
On Monday, the Supreme Court issued its order list. Chief Justice Roberts wrote a statement respecting the denial of certiorari in Massachusetts Lobstermen's Association v. Raimondo. By my count, Roberts had issued statements respecting the denial of certiorari three times before:
- Marek v. Lane (2013).
- North Carolina v. NC State Conference of NAACP (2017).
- Abbott v. Veasey (2017).
In the Lobstermen statement, Chief Justice Roberts referred to President Obama by name. Not, "the President," but "President Obama."
The creation of a national monument is of no small consequence. As part of managing the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument, for example, President Obama banned almost all commercial fishing in the area with a complete ban to follow within seven years.Presidential Proclamation No. 9496, 3 CFR 262, 266–267 (2016).
Here, Roberts was criticizing Obama's action. He could have just as easily said "the President," but by saying President Obama, the Chief personalized the criticism. Later in the paragraph, Roberts observed that the restrictions were lifted. But he didn't mention which President lifted it! (His name was Trump):
Although the restrictions were lifted during this litigation, Presidential Proclamation No. 10049, 85 Fed. Reg. 35793 (2020), that decision is set to be reconsidered and the ban may be reinstated, Exec. Order No. 13990, 86 Fed. Reg. 7037, 7039 (2021).
Indeed, the citation to the 2021 order is directed at the current President. But President Biden was not mentioned by name. Only President Obama.
I searched the Supreme Court database on Westlaw. I could only find three majority opinions that referred to a specific act taken by "President Obama": Trump v. Hawaii, Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico v. Aurelius Investment, LLC, and Barr v. AAPC. And a few separate writings referred to a specific act taken by President Obama: DHS v. Regents (Thomas, J.), NLRB v. Noel Canning (Scalia, J.), Ortiz v. U.S. (Alito, J.), Department of Commerce v. NY (Thomas, J.).
In 2019, I criticized Justice Kavanaugh for referring to Presidents by name. (He did so again in AAPC). Roberts seems to have joined the club. I'm sure at some point, the Chief will direct some ire at the twice-impeached "President Trump."
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"but by saying President Obama, the Chief personalized the criticism."
He released this 'statement' long after Obama was no longer President. If he had referred to "the President", it would have indicated the current President, but the current President hadn't undertaken the action being criticized. So your attempt to read something into this strikes me as a bit absurd.
I wholeheartedly agree. Should we amend case names where it is Trump v. Vance to President v. Vance? The answer is no. I believe that identifying the president is a useful tool for future generations that read the cases.
It would be completely unrealistic to divorce the specific president from the actions at issue. Each president operates in a sphere of all sorts of externalities and internal values. This reflects that reality.
I'm only responding because for once I agree with Brett Bellmore, and since that will probably never happen again, I wanted to make note of it.
Also, I'm not even sure that the Chief's statement can unambiguously be called a criticism. Merely saying that decisions have consequences is, by itself, nothing more than a statement of fact. Decisions do have consequences. Whether they are positive consequences, or constitutional consequences, is a separate question.
I'm sure we agree about a lot, we just don't tend to discuss things like how to put the toilet paper roll on the holder.
Heh. Well, as another person who rarely agrees with you (and, I think, the only fair reading of that statement is, "I rarely agree with you [on issues that you post about, here.]"), I just don't get the concerns about Justices using people's names...for the reasons already mentioned in the comments.
But, I'll back up Josh here, to the extent of: If using a president's name is unusual in a cert denial (whether or not I personally think it's a good or a silly reason), then I guess it's worthy of mention.
I also very rarely (if ever) agree with Brett on issues discussed here. But we are in lockstep on this one. To me, it just seemed like the Chief Justice was attempting to write more clearly. To say this is making a mountain out of a mole hill would be an understatement because a mole hill is much bigger than this. Maybe it should be making a mountain out of a Dollar Store ant farm?
"I’m sure we agree about a lot, we just don’t tend to discuss things like how to put the toilet paper roll on the holder."
Toilet paper is supposed to roll out from the bottom. Anyone who puts it on the holder to roll out from the top should probably be institutionalized, but at the very least medicated and prohibited from owning firearms.
Only tiny, diminutive people such as my wife desire paper to be dispensed in such a non-generally-useful way. People of standard or larger height cannot make use of consumables deployed with such unconsciously anti-tall bias!
Down with short tyranny!
It's' also a case of "Who's on Second" -- there are THREE Presidents involved here, Obama who overreached, Trump who undid it, and then Biden -- being put on notice that Roberts will strike him down if he (Bite Me) does what Obama wanted to do.
That's how I read this -- essentially telling the MLA to bring a new suit on those grounds.
Question: Why wasn't this in the 1st Circuit -- ALL of the fishermen are out of states in the 1st Circuit, and these waters are off those states.
It’s a good question. While I’m not super immersed (no pun!) in admin law, I think it’s because MLA et al. are the plaintiffs here, while the Executive branch officials are defendants. If you want to enjoin such officials, then I believe you must start out in DDC in most instances. Had this case arose from an enforcement action *against* MLA, then yes I would have expected it to be in DMass/CA1.
That makes it even more interesting -- would it *be* DMass?
A state lobster license (which I once had) is good for 12 miles offshore and beyond that, you have to (a) have your state license *and* (b) have a Federal license. Beyond knowing guys who have one, I really don't know what's involved in getting a FCZ license.
There are guys (Maine lobstermen) who go out to Cashes' Ledge and haul for a week and then come into Portsmouth (NH) so that they can sell the lobsters over 5" (which Maine law requires be thrown overboard) and then return to Maine. Apparently it is legal to *sell* FCZ-caught lobsters in NH even though you are a Maine lobsterman. (The ME on the bow of the boat says where they are from...)
So if there was an enforcement action out there, which state would it be brought in, particularly if two or more states were equidistant from the "scene of the crime" and/or the fishermen had Federal licenses issued under the auspices of a third state, e.g. Maine, which they were residents of. Article III says "in the district in which the crime occurred" -- well, ummm....
It's the same thing with drug offenses on the "high seas" -- yes, the US has jurisdiction over a US flagged ship, but which *district* does?
Another fine question. I'm a little worried about getting way out of my depth (ok, that was a pun) here in trying to answer this.
Mainly (another pun!) I said DMass just because MLA is based there, although of course an enforcement action would go against one of their specific members, not the association itself. But your question got me curious, so I spent a little time researching this.
As best I can tell, this kind of venue question is governed by 18 USC § 3238. Per the statute, venue would typically lie in the district where the offender "is arrested or is first brought." Of course, for illegal fishing at an ocean monument, the "arrest"—by the Coast Guard presumably—isn't going to happen in any judicial district, so that just leaves where the offender is ultimately brought. That may give the CG discretion to bring someone to a preferred district, but I would expect in most cases they just go wherever is closest. It's not exactly the same, but I did see a case where someone was prosecuted for illegal fishing—not under the Antiquities Act, but a different statute—near the Bahamas, and the case was brought in SDFL, which is the closest district.
Ironically, a Nat Geo article at the time the monument was originally announced noted the challenges it posed for the CG in policing that large an area.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/140925-pacific-remote-island-monument-enforcement
Of course, the above is only relevant to a criminal enforcement action. In a civil case, there might be more latitude (I just can't quit these puns!) in terms of district selection.
Now you've gone and given me a serious lobster craving.
Would you prefer that Roberts said, "President 44?
I tend to agree. That comment struck me much more as a nod to timing than an attribution of responsibility.
This is such a weird post.
How else would he have written it? The president? Which president? It could be anyone from Biden, Trump, Obama, Bush ... he didn't give a date (except in the citation). "A proclamation was issued" is informal and indirect, and not good writing. I'm all for reading between the lines, but inferring an entire post out of the use of the name "Obams" is just weird.
I prefer the name, Ivy Indoctrinated, Rent Seeking, Big Government, Quack Lawyer Obama, an Unmitigated Catastrophe to Our Nation. Only 2 people have lower morality, one is a serial rapist and murderer of children, the other is the journalist.
You are allowed to leave your grandma's basement.
Don't tell him that! He's fine where he is
Exactly. If he leaves his basement he might get a sunburn and then we'll never here the end of it.
Sunburn was invented by lawyers.
Right, because if there were no sunburn, there would be no opportunity for lawyers to get rich on product liability lawsuits against companies that manufacture sunscreen. Those lawyers sure are sneaky.
Don't be silly, sunburn was invented by Coppertone so they could sell sunscreen.
No, Sarcastr0 is totally right. Specifically it was invented by Justice Brandeis. It’s the best disinfectant!
It's all part of the Jewish Conspiracy!
"I didn't go out in the noonday sun. D'jew?" [Hat-tip: Woody Allen]
The space lasers cause intense sunburn, to say the least.
I could suppose there's some sort of tradition to use the constitutional branch name (Congress, President), when addressing another branch; but at the same time, clarity in legal writing is always welcome.
This blog gets two Mehs.
The Shelby County dissent said "President Bush" when talking about his signing of the 2006 VRA renewal. I don't think they were criticizing him, quite the opposite actually. "President Bush" was also mentioned by name for his actions in Medellin v. Texas by the majority opinion, again, not really personalized.
This seems odd, but let's provide some slack. He must be struggling with a developing recognition that Q might have been lying.
Once upon a time chief justices were never referred to by name, it was always THE CHIEF JUSTICE. But the world seems to have have survived the change to Chief Justice Roberts.
Perhaps the world will survive this change, too.
I don’t get the big deal of mentioning a president’s name in any context, especially for EOs, which by definition are issued by specific presidents acting on their own initiative. The only thing problematic with J. Ro here as I see it was selectively targeting Obama but not the other two presidents who were also implicated by the circumstances.
Is there any precedent for never calling a former President by name in an opinion?
None whatsoever.
OMG OMG OMG this is so exciting
Okay, that was funny.
Blackman reveals immaturity here. To the reasonable person, use of the president's name here simply makes writing clearer, and the contrast to a 2000 presidential proclamation does not mean what the writer (Blackman, not Roberts) intends, because historians will have no doubt that there was only one president that year...
Once upon a time Prof. Blackman's obsessive hatred of Chief Justice Roberts was more amusing than appalling. That time has passed. Blackman has become as irrationally critical of the Chief as the most ardent Trumpling is irrationally worshipful of the Donald. The Volokh Conspiracy should be embarrassed to have him as a "contributor."
Look, he's a professor at a tier 5 law school. Cut him some slack.
Honestly, I'd be more embarrassed by the fawning over Barrett, the exhaustive self-promotion, the exhausting and elitist posts about waiting in line at SCOTUS, and the dickish grave dancing about Ginsburg. And the routine factual errors in his SCOTUS history posts. Or posts with factually dubious premises, like this one or the one from the other day about how Biden was doomed because he didn't have a confirmed Solicitor General, even though Trump didn't have one at this stage either.
Leaving all of that aside, it seems to me that clarity would often be enhanced by mentioning the name of the President who issued an EO, or vetoed a statute, or did some other official act. Perhaps it was not so back in "the old days", but since (say, arbitrarily) 1976, if a Presidential action was taken by Carter, or Clinton, or Obama, or Biden, or instead by Reagan, or Bush 41, or Bush 43, or Trump, sheds some light on the idealogical/political environment in which the action was taken, and was understood. Even today when talking about unaccompanied minors at the southern border, don't we talk about whether the "cages" they put children in are the responsibility of Obama, or Trump, or Biden? We don't say that they are "the President's cages", do we?