Chief Justice John Roberts’ anti-abortion activist wife may have 'influenced' his 'judicial decisions'

As the United States Supreme Court remains under deep scrutiny over issues of ethics, "questions of conflict of interest" are revealing details of the justices' pasts, Business Insider reports.

Jane Sullivan Roberts, lawyer and wife of Chief Justice John Roberts, is highly revered in the anti-abortion advocacy space, having served in leadership roles for Feminists for Life — a group that aims to "make abortion unthinkable" — from 1995-1999.

Insider reports:

In the year leading up to John Roberts' nomination to the Supreme Court by then-President George W. Bush, many social conservatives were initially skeptical of the judge who seemed to have a lack of public opinions and speeches outlining his views, according to a 2005 New York Times profile following his nomination.

Jane Roberts' work leading a top anti-abortion organization in the 1990s and her continued legal work on behalf of that nonprofit helped, in part, muster conservative support for her husband's Supreme Court nomination, according to research shared with Insider by the watchdog group 'Accountable.US'.

Former President George W. Bush nominated Roberts in 2005, and almost two decades later, according to Insider, the justice "voted to uphold a Mississippi law that prohibits nearly all abortions after 15 weeks in Jackson v. Dobbs, a decision that led to the 2022 reversal of Roe v. Wade and the dismantling of 50 years of abortion protections and precedence."

Because Jane Roberts halted her work with the group prior to her husband's confirmation, Scott Lemieux, a professor of political science at the University of Washington and Supreme Court and constitutional law expert told the publication her "past anti-abortion leadership likely doesn't rise to the level of being a bonafide conflict of interest."

Furthermore, Insider reports:

The suggestion then that Jane Roberts' anti-abortion work may have influenced her husband's judicial decisions on abortion cases is complicated by the fact that John Roberts did not ultimately join his fellow conservative justices in voting to overturn Roe v. Wade entirely, instead lending his support only to upholding the law at the center of Jackson v. Dobbs.

In his concurring opinion, John Roberts made clear that he felt the Supreme Court's five conservative justices went too far in overturning Roe v. Wade, calling it a 'serious jolt' to the legal system while advocating for a 'narrower' decision on the matter.

Lemieux commented "If there was something about his wife's activism that made him particularly biased on that issue, it's pretty strange that, if anything, he's moved to the left on abortion over time.

However, he added, "Ultimately, the Supreme Court is a powerful institution and all-powerful institutions deserve scrutiny," Lemieux told Insider. "It's not entitled to a fixed level of legitimacy."

Similarly, Kyle Herrig, president of progressive advocacy group Accountable.US, told Insider, "It's reasonable to ask if Jane Roberts' leadership and pro bono counsel for a right-wing anti-choice group with prior business before the Court is a conflict of interest for Chief Justice Roberts," Herrig, the Accountable.US president, said.

"Every federal judge is bound to an ethics code requiring them to avoid behavior that so much as looks improper — except for Supreme Court justices. Chief Justice Roberts has the power to change that, but so far he hasn't shown the courage."

Business Insider's full report is available at this link.