The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Chief Justice Roberts as Chancellor of the Smithsonian Institute
The New York Times offers some insights into the Parliamentarian in Chief.
Chief Justice Roberts also serves as the Chancellor of the Smithsonian Institute. Historically, at least, this position did not involve much controversy. But times have changed. President Trump sought to remove the Director of the National Portrait Gallery. In June, the Smithsonian board discussed the matter. And the New York Times spoke with at least three people who were present at the meeting:
On June 9, the leadership of the Smithsonian gathered for a quarterly, but hardly routine, meeting behind closed doors.
President Trump had already called out the Smithsonian for being part of a "concerted and widespread effort to rewrite our nation's history" and announced he was firing the head of its National Portrait Gallery.
Now the Smithsonian's board planned to discuss a response — a resolution carefully calibrated to avoid a confrontation with the president. The resolution would reinforce that only the Smithsonian had the power to fire its museum leader, but would also order a full review of Smithsonian content for bias.
After the resolution had been introduced, Representative Carlos Gimenez of Florida, a Republican board member, interrupted, proposing instead that the board fire the gallery director, as Mr. Trump had sought. His effort was quickly shut down by the Smithsonian's chancellor — the chief justice of the Supreme Court, John G. Roberts Jr.
"We already have a motion on the floor," Chief Justice Roberts said, according to three people with knowledge of the proceedings.
The original resolution succeeded. The meeting quickly moved on.
If the moment was unusually tense for a gathering of a museum board, the intervention by the chief justice, a committed parliamentarian, was not. As chancellor, he is known to preside over meetings with a strict focus on rules and procedures, assiduously avoiding partisan debates — a demeanor that aligns with his reputation as an institutionalist and incrementalist jurist.
The rest of the article presents an informative background of the Chief Justices's role at the Smithsonian.
This vignette is largely consistent with things I've heard over the years about the Chief Justice. At the Judicial Conference, all discussions are limited to items on the "discuss list." And if an item is not on the discuss list, it cannot be debated. And Roberts has large control over what is on the discuss list. Remarkably, the Judicial Conference's ill-fated reassignment policy wasn't on the discuss list. I imagine he treats deliberations at the Smithsonian in a similar fashion.
Does Roberts bring this domineering approach to the Supreme Court's conference? Justice Steven discussed Roberts's role as a presiding officer in his memoir, Five Chiefs. Here is an excerpt:
With regard to all of his special responsibilities, John Roberts is an excellent chief justice. Perhaps he is not quite as efficient as his predecessor when presiding in open court or in the Court's conferences, but his occasional and minor deviations from strict enforcement are well justified. His own extensive experience as an advocate may have made him slightly more generous in allowing a few comments after the red light is turned on, but in my judgment those allowances have always been appropriate.
In our private conferences he was always a well-prepared, fair, and effective leader. For instance, when I added cases to the list of cert petitions to be discussed—that is, when I asked that the conference discuss petitions for certiorari that the chief had not thought worth our attention—it was apparent that he always took a second look at them. By the time the conference arrived, he was prepared to explain his vote to deny, or to acknowledge that there were valid reasons for considering a grant. He also welcomed more discussion of the merits of the argued cases than his predecessor—including expansions of the reasoning behind his own votes—but he maintained the appropriate impartiality in giving each of us an opportunity to speak. In sum, he is a better presiding officer than both of his immediate predecessors.
I think this story must be coupled with the recent leak to the Federalist about the Judicial Conference. People are apparently no longer afraid of talking to Roberts to the press. The grip of the iron fist loosens.
