Assertive change of Chief Justice Roberts on the Supreme Court, granting immunity to Trump

In a significant shift, Chief Justice John Roberts has taken a more assertive role on the Supreme Court, particularly in cases involving former President Donald Trump. The six Republican-appointed conservatives, including Roberts, established far-reaching immunity from Trump's prosecution, marking a clear 6-3 split with the liberal justices. This decision diverged from Roberts' previous attempts to negotiate compromises and lessen the appearance of politics in the court's decisions.

Roberts, who is about to begin his 20th term, has been known for his institutionalist leanings, often emphasizing that judges put aside their political affiliations once they take the robes. However, its recent decisions suggest a departure from this approach. He has taken on more significant cases, including one that overturned a 1984 precedent that gave federal regulators considerable power over health care, food and drug safety, the environment and consumer affairs.

The immunity dispute stems from four criminal charges brought against Trump by special counsel Jack Smith, related to the former president's protest of the 2020 election results. Roberts avoided references to the chaos and violence of the Capitol riots in January 6, 2021, as he found a new immunity granted in the Constitution for a former president.

Roberts' more assertive approach has been welcomed by his Tory colleagues, who were previously wary of his efforts in the middle of the bench. However, their decisions have deepened the ideological and political rift within the court. His construction of official acts was extensive and his negotiations were mainly with his conservative colleagues.

In his opinion, Roberts emphasized the importance of the case and tried to divert attention from Trump. He expressed concern about the routine prosecutions of former presidents and “a cycle of factional fighting.” However, their decisions were criticized by liberal judges, who argued that the majority had gone beyond the issues necessary to decide the case.

Judge Amy Coney Barrett, Trump's third appointee to the high court, was the only right-wing justice to try to bridge the gap with the dissenting justices. In a concurring opinion, he asserted that “the president's constitutional protection from prosecution is limited” and suggested how the case might move forward.

In conclusion, Roberts appears to have reached a turning point in his tenure as chief justice. His view of the high court has become more aggressive and he has taken a more assertive role in significant cases, marking a departure from his earlier institutionalist approach.