When the Supreme Court reconvenes for its fall term, as it always does on the first Monday of October, celebration will be in order for some — and gnashing of teeth for others. Twenty years have passed since Chief Justice Roberts replaced the previous chief, William Rehnquist. Chief Justice Roberts leads a court with a conservative super majority, and has in the past two decades led the court to its share of milestones — and fielded his share of flak.

Porcelain is the traditional gift for a 20th wedding anniversary, but little about Chief Justice Roberts’s tenure has been delicate. In the landmark presidential immunity case, Trump v. United States, the Nine hardened the shell of protection around presidential action. The Roberts Court has also strengthened religious liberty jurisprudence. In 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, the court found for a Colorado website designer’s conscience.

In other spheres the Roberts Court has improved the federalist hand. In Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, the court overruled Roe v. Wade’s holding that there is a constitutional right to an abortion. The majority opinion, penned by Justice Samuel Alito, declared that the regulation of abortion has been “returned to the people and their elected representatives.” The chief has also, in voting rights cases, reduced the heaviness of Washington’s hand.  

Also strengthened have been the powers of the executive branch — a posthumous majority for Justice Antonin Scalia. In a signal case from last term, Trump v. CASA, the justices sharply curtailed the use of nationwide or “universal” injunctions to hamstring presidential action. That ruling percolated in the context of Mr. Trump’s push to abolish birthright citizenship — an issue that could return to the court’s docket this coming term.

The next chapter of the Roberts Court could feature cases no less seismic than those that are already being pored over in law schools. In addition to birthright citizenship the coming term could feature a reappraisal of Obergefell v. Hodges, which found a constitutional right to gay marriage. The court’s senior justice, Clarence Thomas, averred last month to discard precedent that is “totally stupid.” That could portend blockbusters ahead.  

We get that not everyone is pleased with the work of the Roberts Court. Liberal lion Steven Vladeck writes that “it is objectively true that the Supreme Court is much less popular — and is subject to much more widespread public criticism — today than was true in September 2005.” Polling, though, indicates that the court’s plummeting popularity is entirely due to Democratic disaffection, which has exploded since 2020.

Chief Justice Roberts during his now-distant confirmation hearing declared that “judges are not politicians,” but these columns have tracked how the leader of the federal judiciary has on occasion been pulled into the political fray. Under heavy Democratic pressure he crafted a code of ethics — an error, albeit a non-binding one. He also swatted away Mr. Trump’s suggestion that a federal judge be impeached for an adverse ruling on immigration.

Those interventions, though, have not won the chief plaudits from Democrats. President Biden called for the end of lifetime tenure — though it would appear to be crosswise with the parchment — and called the immunity ruling a “terrible disservice to the people of this nation.” Chief Justice Roberts famously likened a judge to a caller of balls and strikes. It is no surprise that like umpires everywhere, he has come in for criticism.

The longest-serving chief justice was none other than John Marshall, who held the post for 35 years. That puts Chief Justice Roberts in something like the fifth inning of his tenure if he is to catch the longest-serving chief of them all. The future of the Roberts Court could be written in large part by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who has emerged as something of a swing vote. Here’s to another 20 years for the Chief — time enough to celebrate his ruby anniversary.