Chief Justice John Roberts recently participated in a public conversation with Senior Judge Lee Rosenthal at Rice University. During this conversation, Rosenthal asked Roberts about how he handles criticism of the court and his opinions. He acknowledged that criticism is part of the job, and can even be considered healthy, but warned that when it shifts from legal analysis to personal attacks, it becomes dangerous.
He stressed that judges work hard to get their decisions right, yet personally directed hostility threatens the integrity of their work and firmly concluded, “It’s got to stop.”
Roberts overlooked the impact of judges’ decisions by suggesting that personal attacks on judges are inherently dangerous. Judges, especially the justices of the Supreme Court, make rulings that can affect millions of people. Therefore, the public has a right to respond, even sharply, to those decisions.
His caution to separate personal criticism from political critique reflects a standard that doesn’t exist for everyone and is a form of institutional and positional privilege. For many people, especially people of color and those in marginalized communities, personal and political impacts are inseparable and there’s simply no option to shield oneself from the consequences of decisions made by those in power.
While Roberts framed criticism as something that should remain separate from personal lives, that separation is not possible for those who live with the consequences of those decisions.
The public, facing the consequences of these rulings, has no such protection and must bear the impact without recourse.
Even if criticism becomes harsh or violent, it’s a predictable and understandable response to systems and policies that judges have created and continue to uphold. Public scrutiny, in all its intensity, is one of the few ways available to hold those in power accountable.
For example, in cases involving immigration, court rulings often determine whether people are allowed to remain in the country or forced to leave, consequently separating families and disrupting lives. For those affected, these decisions have deep personal effects. Prioritizing concerns about tone or personal criticism shifts focus away from the far more serious consequences these rulings create. The safety and stability of those impacted by judicial decisions carry far greater weight than the discomfort judges may face from public backlash.
The scale of these decisions further shows why criticism cannot remain impersonal. As of 2025, more than 59,000 people were held in immigration detention, with nearly half having no criminal record. These policies, upheld and shaped through court decisions, affect thousands of people who aren’t considered public safety threats yet still face detention and possible deportation.
Therefore, expecting criticism to remain purely legal is virtually impossible.
For Roberts to expect praise or polite feedback after issuing decisions that disrupt lives is unrealistic. His call for personal criticism to “stop” ignores the fact that those harmed by judicial decisions have no reason to respond with kindness or respect. Judicial power comes with accountability.
It also shows the audacity of Roberts’ expectation. The public is not obligated to soften its critique for the comfort of those in power. Judges and justices work for the people; expecting sympathy from those affected by their rulings reverses that relationship.
While some responses from people may be extreme, such as sending death threats or committing violent actions against judges, these reactions reflect the deep frustration and sense of powerlessness that people experience when their lives are directly impacted.
This sense of powerlessness can be seen in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, where the Supreme Court overruled Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, eliminating the federal constitutional right to abortion.
Following the ruling, some states immediately enforced strict abortion bans and left women with fewer to no medical options, putting women at risk of maternal deaths. Studies show that infant deaths rose, with Black infants disproportionately affected, and deaths from severe birth defects also increased. It’s easy to understand why some public reactions to the decision have been extreme.
Indeed, every ruling affects people in deeply personal ways, with some even dying because of decisions made by judges and justices. The outcomes, therefore, leave little to no room for measured or mild responses, and it’s absurd to treat these decisions as abstract when they dictate the suffering of entire communities and the well-being of those most directly affected.
Roberts has no grounds to demand restraint when the people most affected have nothing left to lose. Strong reactions are inevitable when lives and families are threatened.
