Supreme Court Justices face criticism frequently, but historically, they were able to defend their opinions publicly. Chief Justice Marshall, considered the most influential member of the Court, wrote a series of essays under the pseudonym “A Friend of the Constitution” in 1819 to defend his opinion in McCulloch v. Maryland.
Is it ethical for judges to defend their opinions publicly? While modern standards may frown upon such behavior, Marshall’s actions were deemed appropriate at the time. Chief Justice Roberts referenced Marshall’s essays in Trump v. United States, highlighting the enduring significance of the question of presidential immunity.
“Our perspective must be more farsighted, for ‘The peculiar circumstances of the moment may render a measure more or less wise, but cannot render it more or less constitutional.’ Chief Justice John Marshall, A Friend of the Constitution No. V, Alexandria Gazette, July 5, 1819, in John Marshall’s Defense of McCulloch v. Maryland.”
Roberts also cited Marshall’s essays in NFIB v. Sebelius, emphasizing the responsibility of the Court to uphold constitutional limits on federal power. By invoking Marshall’s wisdom, Roberts asserts the importance of judicial restraint in interpreting the Constitution.
While some Justices may be overshadowed by their predecessors, Roberts continues to draw inspiration from Chief Justice Marshall’s legacy.
