Recent reporting from the New York Times has raised concerns over the Supreme Court’s handling of cases related to the January 6th Capitol incident. According to the piece, Chief Justice John Roberts played a pivotal role in shaping decisions that allegedly benefited former President Donald Trump. However, this narrative misses key elements of the role of the judiciary and the need for adherence to constitutional principles.

The Importance of Judicial Neutrality

The primary duty of any Supreme Court justice is to interpret the Constitution, not to cater to popular opinion or political agendas. While the New York Times paints Chief Justice Roberts as an “aggressive conservative maximalist,” it’s critical to understand that the Constitution must be interpreted in a way that respects the original intent of its framers. When a case reaches the highest court in the land, the justices must rise above partisanship and ensure that the fundamental rights and structures laid out in our nation’s founding documents are preserved.

To suggest that Chief Justice Roberts was somehow motivated by a desire to support Trump or his policies overlooks the fact that the Constitution itself must remain the central focus of any judicial decision. If Trump’s cases were decided in his favor, it is because the Constitution—as interpreted by the Court—found legal merit in them, not because of political allegiance. Judicial neutrality, not political maneuvering, must guide the Court.

Roberts: A Consistent Defender of Constitutional Conservatism

For years, critics on both the left and the right have scrutinized Roberts for his approach to the law, often labeling him an unpredictable centrist. However, Roberts’ recent rulings suggest that he is guided by a clear conservative vision—one that seeks to uphold the original meaning of the Constitution. In the January 6th-related cases, Roberts seems to have made decisions that respected the limits of governmental overreach and upheld individual rights, ensuring that the American judicial system remains one of integrity.

This stance should be praised, not criticized. The United States was founded on principles that recognize God-given rights and limited government, and the judiciary’s role is to defend those values. In this context, Roberts’ rulings are not about supporting a particular political figure but about protecting the constitutional framework that guards against tyranny—whether that tyranny comes from a mob or a government.

The Mischaracterization of Judicial Activism

The claim that Chief Justice Roberts has embraced “aggressive activism” reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of conservative jurisprudence. True judicial activism occurs when justices rewrite the law to align with their personal or political beliefs. What Roberts has done, in contrast, is defend the Constitution as it is written. His concurrence in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, where he criticized both the majority and dissent for their certainty, reflects a cautious and thoughtful approach to contentious issues. His decisions on January 6th cases should be seen through a similar lens—guided not by activism, but by a measured commitment to constitutional fidelity.

The Broader Conservative Perspective

Conservative Christians have long advocated for a legal system that respects moral order, limited government, and the rights enshrined in the Constitution. Roberts’ rulings on January 6th-related cases align with these values. It is essential to uphold the rule of law and the Constitution, even in times of political turmoil. The left’s criticism of Roberts, and the conservative majority of the Court, often centers on the belief that these justices are “out of step” with modern America. But the reality is that the Constitution was designed to be a bulwark against the fleeting whims of popular culture and political power struggles.

As Christians, we recognize that governance must be rooted in truth, justice, and moral law. The law of the land, guided by God’s divine order, is not subject to manipulation or reinterpretation based on current political trends. The Court’s responsibility is to apply the law as it stands, and Roberts has shown an unwavering commitment to doing just that.

Conclusion: Defending Constitutional Order

The criticisms levied at Chief Justice Roberts from outlets like the New York Times and Slate reflect a deep misunderstanding of both his role and the judicial process. Roberts’ decisions—especially in the January 6th-related cases—must be viewed through the lens of constitutional integrity, not partisan politics. From a Christian conservative perspective, this is precisely what is needed in our country: a judiciary that remains faithful to its duty of upholding the Constitution, protecting individual liberties, and resisting the pressures of ideological conformity.

At a time when many seek to distort the law to fit their political narrative, we must defend those who stand firm on the unchanging principles that have guided America since its founding. Chief Justice Roberts has done just that, and for that, he deserves commendation, not criticism.