John Glover Roberts Jr.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit circuit Retired 2005 · served 2003–2005 Appointed by George W. Bush (Republican) 33 signed orders read

Judge Roberts no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.

How Judge Roberts decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

Roberts polices reasoned agency decisionmaking and consistency: an agency applying a multi-factor test must explain any departure from its own precedent, or the petition is granted and the matter remanded.

“We therefore grant the petition for review, deny the cross-application for enforcement, and remand to the NLRB for further proceedings.”

Where an agency's interpretation is reasonable and supported by substantial evidence, he defers and denies review; deference does not extend to a reading that contradicts the regulation's text.

“Finding that substantial evidence supports the Commission’s decision and that the decision is otherwise reasonable, we deny Consumers’ petition for review.”

Procedural preferences

Roberts prizes clean, bright-line jurisdictional rules and resists tests that force a court into the merits before deciding it has jurisdiction; he reads exclusive statutory remedial schemes as foreclosing end-runs.

“We affirm the judgment dismissing the action for lack of jurisdiction.”

He enforces preservation and plain-error discipline, declining to reach a merits argument a party never squarely raised below.

“For the foregoing reasons, the judgment is affirmed.”

Cautions

An agency owes regulated parties fair notice: Roberts will grant a petition where the Commission decides a rate proposal on an element it never signaled it was considering, even while deferring on the substantive ratemaking judgments.

“grant the petition because FERC failed to provide adequate notice that it would consider such an element in assessing the pending rate proposal. In all other respects, we affirm the Commission.”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

United States v. Bolla
· 2003-10-24
Appeal (Steven Bolla) Denied

“For the foregoing reasons, the judgment is affirmed.”

Ramaprakash v. Federal Aviation Administration
· 2003-10-21
Petition for review (Tilak Ramaprakash) Granted

“For the reasons stated, we vacate the orders and remand to the Board for further proceedings.”

DSMC Inc. v. Convera Corp.
· 2003-11-21
Appeal (NGT Library and Convera Corporation) Moot / procedural

“We dismiss the appeals for lack of jurisdiction.”

BDPCS, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission
· 2003-12-16
Petition for review (BDPCS, Inc.) Denied

“The petition for review is denied.”

I.T. Consultants, Inc. v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan
· 2003-12-16
Appeal (Islamic Republic of Pakistan) Granted in part

“we affirm the district court’s denial of the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter and personal jurisdiction with respect to Pakistan. We reverse the denial of the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction over Junejo.”

Graham v. Ashcroft
· 2004-02-24
Appeal (Gilbert M. Graham) Denied

“We affirm the district court’s dismissal of Graham’s complaint.”

In re: Tennant
· 2004-02-24
Petition for review (James M. Tennant) Moot / procedural

“we dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction.”

Lemoyne-Owen College v. National Labor Relations Board
· 2004-02-10
Petition for review (LeMoyne-Owen College) Granted

“We therefore grant the petition for review, deny the cross-application for enforcement, and remand to the NLRB for further proceedings.”

International Action Center v. United States
· 2004-04-16
Appeal (Metropolitan Police Department supervisors) Granted

“We reverse the denial of summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds for the inaction theory of liability, and remand to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

Duchek v. National Transportation Safety Board
· 2004-04-20
Petition for review (Charles E. Duchek) Granted

“The petition for review is granted and the Board’s order is vacated.”

Consumers Energy Company v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
· 2004-05-14
Petition for review (Consumers Energy Company) Denied

“Finding that substantial evidence supports the Commission’s decision and that the decision is otherwise reasonable, we deny Consumers’ petition for review.”

Jung v. Mundy, Holt & Mance, P.C.
· 2004-06-25
Appeal (Bow G. Jung) Granted

“We reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment on the legal malpractice claim based on the alleged conflict of interest, and remand to the district court to permit Bow to pursue his claim with respect to the attorneys’ conduct and any resulting damages within the three-year period prior to the filing of his complaint.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Not applicable to this circuit-court record.

A historical record

Judge Roberts no longer hears cases. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.