Exploring the business impact of Roberts court nomination
William McGarrity, BBA2
Issue date: 9/19/05 Section: News
- Page 1 of 3 next >
After watching several hours of his confirmation hearings on C-SPAN, it seems all but certain that John Roberts will be the next Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Barring the sudden appearance of an Anita Hill (the woman who came forward 14 years ago with sexual harassment claims against Clarence Thomas and nearly derailed that confirmation), we will be living under a court led by Judge Roberts for many years.
Like everything to do with Roberts, only a rough prediction of his potential impact on business can be gleaned from his record. Former Michigan governor John Engler, now president of the National Association of Manufacturers, has indicated Roberts can help lead the court to "achieve a business environment that is fair and predictable." This vague endorsement confirms what we'd expect given Roberts' employment history (the Reagan administration is not exactly known for reigning in free markets). In private practice, he worked for Hogan & Hartson LLP, the largest firm in Washington D.C. and accordingly no stranger to business law.
One of Roberts' more telling business-related opinions to date is his dissenting argument for the rehearing of Rancho Viejo, LLC. v. Norton. He posits that Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce is not broad enough to warrant the protection of a particular species of toad under the Endangered Species Act. While the fate of this particular toad does not affect business, Roberts' dissent reveals a relatively narrow interpretation of the commerce clause.
The commerce clause is not as exciting as free speech or abortion rights, but its interpretation has a profound effect on all citizens' wellbeing. It is through this clause, which allows congress to regulate commerce "among the several states," that we have federal laws encompassing environmental protection, public health, consumer safety, and civil rights in hiring. That is, of course, only if the court reads the commerce clause as allowing this. Up until the Great Depression, the federal government had very little latitude to control business practices. President Roosevelt found the sitting Supreme Court a serious roadblock to his "hands-on" recovery plan-it was only after a number of years and threats of packing the court (i.e. adding more than 9 justices to tip the scales) that the new, broad interpretation of the commerce clause to be. Under this new standard, as long as a statue possesses even an ambiguous, indirect relation to intersate commerce, it was deemed constitutional.
Like everything to do with Roberts, only a rough prediction of his potential impact on business can be gleaned from his record. Former Michigan governor John Engler, now president of the National Association of Manufacturers, has indicated Roberts can help lead the court to "achieve a business environment that is fair and predictable." This vague endorsement confirms what we'd expect given Roberts' employment history (the Reagan administration is not exactly known for reigning in free markets). In private practice, he worked for Hogan & Hartson LLP, the largest firm in Washington D.C. and accordingly no stranger to business law.
One of Roberts' more telling business-related opinions to date is his dissenting argument for the rehearing of Rancho Viejo, LLC. v. Norton. He posits that Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce is not broad enough to warrant the protection of a particular species of toad under the Endangered Species Act. While the fate of this particular toad does not affect business, Roberts' dissent reveals a relatively narrow interpretation of the commerce clause.
The commerce clause is not as exciting as free speech or abortion rights, but its interpretation has a profound effect on all citizens' wellbeing. It is through this clause, which allows congress to regulate commerce "among the several states," that we have federal laws encompassing environmental protection, public health, consumer safety, and civil rights in hiring. That is, of course, only if the court reads the commerce clause as allowing this. Up until the Great Depression, the federal government had very little latitude to control business practices. President Roosevelt found the sitting Supreme Court a serious roadblock to his "hands-on" recovery plan-it was only after a number of years and threats of packing the court (i.e. adding more than 9 justices to tip the scales) that the new, broad interpretation of the commerce clause to be. Under this new standard, as long as a statue possesses even an ambiguous, indirect relation to intersate commerce, it was deemed constitutional.
