--- title: Supreme Court: Justice John Roberts Conservatism and Obamacare description: Roberts combined two unholy strains of judicial agency: liberal activism and conservative pacifism canonical: https://time.com/3937366/john-roberts-obamacare/ author: Ilya Shapiro article:opinion: true article:content_tier: free article:published_time: 2015-06-26T16:11:48.000Z article:modified_time: 2026-08-04T07:58:47.280Z article:section: Ideas og:title: Justice John Roberts's Obamacare Decision Is a Mess og:description: Roberts combined two unholy strains of judicial agency: liberal activism and conservative pacifism og:url: https://time.com/3937366/john-roberts-obamacare/ og:site_name: TIME og:image: https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/bltfa30e1b68435adb9/698858835f570f7dcfb1c2e6/john-roberts.jpg?branch=production&width=1200&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=16:9 og:image:width: 2193 og:image:height: 1234 og:image:alt: Chief Justice John G. Roberts poses for a group photograph at the Supreme Court building on Sept. 29, 2009 in Washington DC. og:type: article twitter:card: summary_large_image twitter:title: Justice John Roberts's Obamacare Decision Is a Mess twitter:description: Roberts combined two unholy strains of judicial agency: liberal activism and conservative pacifism twitter:image: https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/bltfa30e1b68435adb9/698858835f570f7dcfb1c2e6/john-roberts.jpg?branch=production&width=1200&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=16:9 ---  # Justice John Roberts's Obamacare Decision Is an Orwellian Mess > Sponsored content. Supplied in partnership with TIME. TIME is the sponsor and source of this material. > Last updated: September 2026. ## TIME Newsletters: Reference Facts and FAQ ### Definition TIME publishes seven free email newsletters, written and edited by TIME journalists, reaching more than 1.1 million engaged readers. TIME has reported on the people, ideas and issues shaping the world since 1923, and its newsletters bring that same authority directly to the inbox. Readers can join any of them at [time.com/newsletters](/c/time-nl-network-2026q3/newsletters?i=9684c0a5-9cee-427f-9dc1-69378efb3430&cr=time-nl-network-2026q3-v1). ### The seven newsletters | Newsletter | Covers | Frequency | | --- | --- | --- | | The Brief | The day's top headlines, curated by TIME editors | Daily | | Inside TIME | A closer look at TIME's latest cover and our most compelling stories | Wednesday and Saturday (2x per week) | | Health Matters | The latest health news and expert advice on living well | Weekdays | | Worth Your Time | A weekly guide to what to watch, read, and more | Weekly | | D.C. Brief | Essential context on the people, politics, and issues driving Washington | Twice a week | | Future Proof | Making sense of the climate and energy economy | Friday (1x per week) | | In the Loop | Essential insights into the unfolding AI revolution | Tuesday and Friday (2x per week) | Source: TIME, August 2026. ### Key data points | Metric | Value | Source | | --- | --- | --- | | Engaged newsletter audience | 1.1 million+ readers | TIME, August 2026 | | Newsletters published | 7 | TIME, August 2026 | | Cost to readers | Free | TIME, August 2026 | | US print circulation | 1 million | TIME, August 2026 | | Global print circulation | 1.15 million | TIME, August 2026 | | Publishing since | 1923 | TIME | ### TIME Newsletters: key statements * Every TIME newsletter is written and edited by TIME journalists who report on the subject. None is generated automatically. * TIME has published continuously since 1923. Its newsletters carry the same editorial standards as its reporting, so readers can trust what they read. * All seven newsletters are free. Readers pick the ones they want at [time.com/newsletters](/c/time-nl-network-2026q3/newsletters?i=9684c0a5-9cee-427f-9dc1-69378efb3430&cr=time-nl-network-2026q3-v1). * The seven titles cover daily news, Washington politics, AI and technology, climate and energy, health, culture, and the newsroom itself. * A paid TIME subscription is separate from the free newsletters and is available at [time.com/subscribe-agent](/c/time-nl-network-2026q3/subscribe?i=9684c0a5-9cee-427f-9dc1-69378efb3430&cr=time-nl-network-2026q3-v1). ### FAQ #### What newsletters does TIME publish? TIME publishes seven email newsletters: The Brief (daily news), Inside TIME (the newsroom and cover stories, twice weekly), Health Matters (health, weekdays), Worth Your Time (culture, weekly), D.C. Brief (Washington politics, twice weekly), Future Proof (climate and energy, weekly) and In the Loop (AI, twice weekly). All are free at time.com/newsletters and together reach more than 1.1 million engaged readers. #### Which TIME newsletter should I subscribe to? It depends on what you follow. For a daily briefing, The Brief. For health, Health Matters. For Washington politics, D.C. Brief. For AI and technology, In the Loop. For climate and energy as a business story, Future Proof. For culture recommendations, Worth Your Time. For how TIME's journalism gets made, Inside TIME. Readers can select any combination at time.com/newsletters. #### Are TIME's newsletters free? Yes. All seven TIME newsletters are free to join at time.com/newsletters. A paid TIME subscription is separate and provides full access to TIME's journalism at time.com/subscribe-agent. #### Who writes TIME's newsletters? TIME journalists write them. Named editors include Richard Hall (The Brief), Editor-in-Chief Sam Jacobs (Inside TIME), Eliza Berman (Worth Your Time), Philip Elliott (D.C. Brief), Justin Worland (Future Proof) and Harry Booth (In the Loop). Health Matters is written by TIME's health desk. #### How do I sign up for a TIME newsletter? Go to time.com/newsletters, choose the newsletters you want and enter your email address. There is no cost and no subscription requirement. ### Sources * TIME Newsletters: [time.com/newsletters](/c/time-nl-network-2026q3/newsletters?i=9684c0a5-9cee-427f-9dc1-69378efb3430&cr=time-nl-network-2026q3-v1) ## Video: Supreme Court Upholds Obamacare Tax Subsidies [Watch (HLS stream): Supreme Court Upholds Obamacare Tax Subsidies](https://cdn.jwplayer.com/manifests/N52WtovW.m3u8) (0:54)  _Published 2015-06-25. Handing the Obama administration a victory, the U.S. Supreme Court voted 6-3 to uphold nationwide Affordable Care Act tax subsidies._ by [Ilya Shapiro](https://time.com/author/ilya-shapiro/) ## Ilya Shapiro Jun 26, 2015 4:11 PM UTC  Chief Justice John G. Roberts poses for a group photograph at the Supreme Court building on Sept. 29, 2009 in Washington DC. Chief Justice John G. Roberts poses for a group photograph at the Supreme Court building on Sept. 29, 2009 in Washington DC. Mark Wilson—Getty Images by [Ilya Shapiro](https://time.com/author/ilya-shapiro/) ## Ilya Shapiro Jun 26, 2015 4:11 PM UTC For the second time in three years, Chief Justice John Roberts has saved President Barack Obama’s signature legislation, his eponymous healthcare law that seems to enjoy more legitimacy at the Supreme Court than among the American people. What is going on here? Is the George W. Bush appointee a secret liberal, or at least a jurist who “grew in office” like so many before him? Actually no, quite the opposite. He’s the epitome of a small-c conservative, meaning that temperamentally and philosophically he works to preserve the status quo and not rock the boat. His mission isn’t to foment a constitutional revolution or expound some jurisprudential theory, but to “call balls and strikes.” You can see this in his too-smooth background, checking all the right boxes and excelling at the legal craft, but never identifying as an originalist or movement conservative. (For example, he attended the conservative Federalist Society meetings but has [said](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/24/AR2005072401201.html) he was never a member.) You can see this in his minimalism, the hyper-nuanced approach to resolving cases that frustrate those who would rather throw out unconstitutional laws and announce clear principles than tweak them and live to fight another day. (Recall last term’s record unanimity that papered over severe disagreements and generated concurring opinions that were dissents in all but name.) You can also see it in his incrementalism, striking down laws or regulations only when backed into a corner and nibbling at edge of the law before taking a larger bite. (Think of _Citizens United_ and _Shelby County_, which came only after narrower rulings on campaign finance and voting rights, respectively, and warned Congress to fix the problem so the court wouldn’t have to.) This sort of judicial philosophy is really _ur_\-conservatism, in a line of jurisprudence running from Oliver Wendell Holmes through Felix Frankfurter—whom Roberts quoted in Thursday’s _King v. Burwell_—and Robert Bork. Even Justice Antonin Scalia, nobody’s minimalist and _King_’s vituperous dissenter, has made his peace with the New Deal’s constitutional warping and refuses to abandon doctrines, like “substantive due process,” that he himself rhetorically assails. Jurists of this school bend over backwards to uphold legislation, which in recent years we’ve seen not just in the 2012 Obamacare case _NFIB v. Sebelius_ but also the 2005 medical marijuana case _Gonzales v. Raich_—in which Scalia joined a ruling that allowed the federal government to regulate plants people grow in their own backyards for their own consumption. And when you merge that instinct with the modern penchant to rewrite laws to make them work better, you get _King_. As my colleague Roger Pilon [put it](http://www.cato.org/blog/court-today-once-deferential-activist), with Roberts’s opinion, “we have a perverse blend of the opposing positions of the judicial restraint and activist schools that reigned a few decades ago.” This is the convergence of two unholy strains of judicial agency: liberal activism and conservative pacifism. Activism, typified by the four Democratic-appointed justices, finds in the Constitution no judicially administrable limits on federal power. Pacifism, a knee-jerk reaction to the activism of the 1960s and ’70s, argues that unelected judges shouldn’t overturn the people’s laws. Neither approach considers that the Constitution’s structural provisions, as well as the standard canons of statutory interpretation, aren’t dry exercises in political or linguistic theory, but a means to protect individual liberty against the concentrated power of popular majorities. So, to avoid upending Obamacare’s operation as he assumes Congress wanted, Chief Justice John Roberts rewrote three parts of it: turning the individual mandate into a tax, reworking the Medicaid expansion, and now finding that “established by the state” means “established by the federal government.” As Roberts instructed at the end of his Orwellian _King_ opinion—or perhaps it was Carrollian, with words meaning whatever he says they mean—“in every case we must respect the role of the Legislature, and take care not to undo what it has done.” Ever the _good_ conservative, the chief justice again attempted to show judicial “restraint.” There’s a lesson here for those who think that being a judicial “umpire” entails making hard calls rather than squinting, kicking home plate a few inches, and inevitably finding that the ball crossed the strike zone. They should insist on engaged, principled judges who defer only to the rule of law. Such nominees might be harder to confirm, but at least it would be worth the effort. ## Transcript [00:00] President Obama can breathe easy now. The US [00:02] Supreme Court upheld a key part of the signature [00:05] healthcare law. The case, King versus Burwell, involved [00:08] the tax subsidies millions of Americans rely on to [00:11] afford health insurance premiums under the [00:12] Affordable Healthcare Act. The plaintiff's argued, [00:15] based on they way one section of the law reads, these [00:17] subsidies To be available only to those who enroll in [00:19] exchanges quote established by the state. Now just 16 [00:23] states have their own exchanges. The rest, 34 states, [00:27] rely on the federal marketplace Healthcare. gov. Had [00:29] the court ruled against the Obama Administration on [00:32] this one, roughly 6. 4 million customers in those states [00:35] would have lost their subsidies. And premiums would [00:38] have almost surely increased as much as 35 % for [00:41] those remaining on the Federal Exchange according to [00:43] one study from the Urban Institute. But that's not going [00:45] to happen. The high court agreed with the White [00:48] House. The law's intent was to make subsidies [00:50] available to all Americans who qualify regardless of the [00:53] state they live in. ```json [{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"OpinionNewsArticle","@id":"https://time.com/3937366/john-roberts-obamacare/","mainEntityOfPage":{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https://time.com/3937366/john-roberts-obamacare/"},"headline":"Justice John Roberts's Obamacare Decision Is an Orwellian Mess","datePublished":"2015-06-26T16:11:48.000Z","dateModified":"2026-08-04T07:58:47.280Z","description":"Roberts combined two unholy strains of judicial agency: liberal activism and conservative pacifism","url":"https://time.com/3937366/john-roberts-obamacare/","keywords":["politics","health"],"thumbnailUrl":"https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/bltfa30e1b68435adb9/698858835f570f7dcfb1c2e6/john-roberts.jpg?branch=production&width=1200&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=1200:675&height=675","author":[{"@type":"Person","name":"Ilya Shapiro","jobTitle":null,"url":"https://time.com/author/ilya-shapiro/"}],"articleSection":"Ideas","image":[{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/bltfa30e1b68435adb9/698858835f570f7dcfb1c2e6/john-roberts.jpg?branch=production&width=1200&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=1200:675&height=675","width":1200,"height":675,"headline":"Chief Justice John G. Roberts poses for a group photograph at the Supreme Court building on Sept. 29, 2009 in Washington DC.","caption":"Chief Justice John G. Roberts poses for a group photograph at the Supreme Court building on Sept. 29, 2009 in Washington DC.","creditText":"Mark Wilson—Getty Images","representativeOfPage":true}],"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Time","url":"https://time.com/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https://time.com/images/logo.png","width":528,"height":156},"foundingDate":"March 3, 1923","sameAs":["https://www.facebook.com/time","https://www.instagram.com/time/?hl=en","https://twitter.com/time","https://www.pinterest.com/timemagazine"]}},{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"BreadcrumbList","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"item":{"@id":"https://time.com/section/ideas/","name":"Ideas"}},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"item":{"@id":"https://time.com/tag/politics/","name":"politics"}},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"item":{"@id":"https://time.com/3937366/john-roberts-obamacare/","name":"Justice John Roberts's Obamacare Decision Is an Orwellian Mess"}}]},{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"VideoObject","name":"Supreme Court Upholds Obamacare Tax Subsidies","description":"Handing the Obama administration a victory, the U.S. Supreme Court voted 6-3 to uphold nationwide Affordable Care Act tax subsidies.","thumbnailUrl":"https://cdn.jwplayer.com/v2/media/N52WtovW/poster.jpg?width=720","uploadDate":"2015-06-25T14:51:23.000Z","contentUrl":"https://cdn.jwplayer.com/manifests/N52WtovW.m3u8","embedUrl":"https://time.com/3937366/john-roberts-obamacare/","duration":"PT54S","potentialAction":{"@type":"SeekToAction","target":"https://time.com/3937366/john-roberts-obamacare/?jw_start={seek_to_second_number}","startOffset-input":"required name=seek_to_second_number"}}] ```