On Tuesday, September 30, 2025, Rolling Stone reported that a new book alleges Chief Justice John Roberts committed an ethical breach while vying for a Supreme Court seat, potentially setting the stage for subsequent ethics controversies within the court. The book, “Without Precedent,” authored by Lisa Graves, suggests Roberts’ actions during his candidacy for the Supreme Court raise questions about his impartiality and adherence to judicial ethics.

According to the book excerpt shared with Rolling Stone, the alleged ethical lapse occurred while Roberts was a judge on the D.C. Circuit Court. During this time, he was involved in a case, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, concerning Salim Ahmed Hamdan, Osama bin Laden’s driver, and his status as a prisoner of war under the Geneva Conventions. Simultaneously, Roberts was being considered by President George W. Bush for a Supreme Court appointment.

Graves argues that Roberts should have recused himself from the Hamdan case, given that the Bush administration was a party to the litigation and had a vested interest in the outcome. The D.C. Circuit panel, including Roberts, ruled in favor of the Bush administration, a decision later overturned by the Supreme Court. Graves suggests that Roberts’ failure to recuse himself created a conflict of interest, as his ruling could have influenced President Bush’s decision to nominate him.

Roberts declined to comment on whether he considered recusing himself, citing judicial ethics rules that prohibit discussing pending cases. However, Graves contends that the ethical breach lay in his failure to recuse himself while actively seeking a promotion from one of the parties involved in the case.

Graves, who previously served as chief counsel for nominations on the Senate Judiciary Committee, claims she recognized early on that Republicans intended to nominate Roberts to the Supreme Court. She believed he would be a “destructive choice,” more effective than his mentor, Bill Rehnquist.

The book excerpt details a timeline of events, noting that Roberts interviewed with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales for a Supreme Court vacancy just days before hearing oral arguments in the Hamdan case. Further interviews with high-ranking Bush administration officials followed while the case was still under consideration.

Legal ethics professors have reportedly concluded that Roberts’ actions violated federal law, which requires judges to recuse themselves if their impartiality could reasonably be questioned. Despite these concerns, Roberts was nominated to the Supreme Court shortly after the D.C. Circuit ruled in favor of the Bush administration in the Hamdan case.

Senators Chuck Schumer and Russ Feingold questioned Roberts about the potential conflict of interest during his nomination hearing, but Roberts declined to answer, citing the pending appeal of the Hamdan case. Graves argues that Roberts used the ethics code to avoid addressing his own ethical conduct.

Graves asserts that Roberts’ handling of the Hamdan case represents an “original sin” that explains his subsequent failure to address ethics scandals within the Supreme Court. She suggests that his ambition for power may have influenced his decision-making and compromised his impartiality.

The book raises questions about whether Roberts can effectively uphold ethical standards for other justices, given his own alleged ethical lapses during his nomination process.

 

 

Source: Rolling Stone