Chris Geidner notes in BuzzFeed News that Chief Justice Roberts may have a little Vaseline under his shoes:
Roberts joined the Supreme Court in 2005, seen as a staunch, across-the-board conservative. In recent years, though, he’s appeared to moderate some of his positions, in specific instances and sometimes in very nuanced ways. That kind of shift could have significant effects on how the current court decides major issues and — if it represents a permanent change — on how Roberts leads the court into the next decade.
In certain cases involving heavily ideological issues, such as whether some activity should be protected under religious freedom or considered a prohibited activity, the Court tends to have a split of 4-4, with Justice Kennedy acting as an unpredictable swing vote.
But if the Chief Justice is sliding to the left, that could herald some interesting changes in the rulings from the Court. Recall that the Chief Justice voted in favor of the ACA, which shocked the political world – what else could he have up his sleeve?
With that in mind, I’ll inaugurate this thread to track the Chief Justice with respect to unusual voting patterns. The first entry? From The Volokh Conspiracy‘s Jonathan Adler:
In Artis v. District of Columbia the Court split 5-4 over the question of what it means to “toll” state law claims under 28 U. S. C. §1367(d). Justice Ginsburg wrote the majority and Justice Gorsuch wrote the dissent. This was not the usual 5-4 opinion, however, as the role of swing justice was played not by Justice Anthony Kennedy but by the Chief Justice, who joined the more liberal justices.
In case you’re as puzzled as I, from the opinion itself:
Section 1367(d)’s instruction to “toll” a state limitations period means to hold it in abeyance, i.e., to stop the clock.
As to whether there are ideological shadows to this opinion, I cannot guess. It seems to have something to do with someone not filing in time in reaction to a lower court ruling, and claiming the time constraint was tolled in this case. I do notice that Adler connects this with Geidner’s piece as well. A lot of court-watchers are on the edge of their seats, I’d say.
