Owen Josephus Roberts

Owen Josephus Roberts
Born	2 5, 1875
Birthplace	Germantown, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S.
Died	Template:Death date and age Chester Springs, Pennsylvania, U.S.
Nationality	American
Occupation	Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States
Known for	Teapot Dome prosecution, "switch in time" during the New Deal era, Cantwell v. Connecticut, Pearl Harbor investigation
Education	University of Pennsylvania (A.B., LL.B.)
Awards	Multiple honorary degrees

Owen Josephus Roberts (May 2, 1875 – May 17, 1955) was an American jurist who served as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1930 to 1945. A native of the Germantown neighborhood of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Roberts rose to national prominence through his role as a special prosecutor in the Teapot Dome scandal of the 1920s, a high-profile investigation into government corruption that brought him to the attention of President Herbert Hoover, who nominated him to the Supreme Court in 1930. During his fifteen years on the bench, Roberts authored landmark opinions, including the majority opinion in Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940), which incorporated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment against the states. Roberts occupied a pivotal position on the Court during one of the most consequential periods in American constitutional history, as the federal government expanded its regulatory powers during the New Deal. His jurisprudence, often characterized as shifting between conservative and progressive positions, earned him a complex and sometimes contradictory legacy that continues to be debated by legal scholars. After leaving the Court, Roberts served as dean of the University of Pennsylvania Law School and devoted himself to civic causes until his death in 1955.

Early Life

Owen Josephus Roberts was born on May 2, 1875, in the Germantown section of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. He grew up in an established Philadelphia family with deep roots in the region. The area of Chester County, Pennsylvania, where Roberts later maintained a farm and residence, would eventually honor his memory — the Owen J. Roberts School District bears his name to this day.

Roberts was raised in a period of significant industrial growth and social change in Philadelphia, then one of the largest and most important cities in the United States. The Germantown neighborhood, historically one of Philadelphia's most prominent residential areas, provided an environment that encouraged civic engagement and educational achievement. Young Roberts showed academic aptitude from an early age and pursued his studies with determination, eventually enrolling at the University of Pennsylvania, where he would distinguish himself as a scholar.

Little is known from the available sources about Roberts's parents or siblings, though his family background was sufficiently comfortable to afford him the opportunity for higher education at a time when university attendance remained relatively uncommon in the United States. His upbringing in Philadelphia would shape his career trajectory significantly — the city's legal community provided the foundation for his rise to national prominence, and he maintained ties to the region throughout his life, returning to his Chester County farm after his retirement from public service.

Education

Owen J. Roberts attended the University of Pennsylvania, where he earned his undergraduate degree (A.B.) with honors. He continued his studies at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, where he obtained his Bachelor of Laws (LL.B.) degree. His academic performance was distinguished enough that he was subsequently invited to join the law school faculty, beginning a long association with the institution that would eventually see him return as its dean in the final decade of his life.

Throughout his career, Roberts received numerous honorary diplomas and degrees from various institutions, a collection of memorabilia that was later donated to the Owen J. Roberts School District. In 2014, the school district received a treasure trove of such memorabilia, including the honorary diplomas bestowed upon the late Supreme Court Justice during his distinguished career.

Career

Early Legal Career and Law Teaching

After completing his legal education at the University of Pennsylvania, Roberts embarked on a dual career as both a practicing attorney and a law professor. He joined the faculty of the University of Pennsylvania Law School, where he taught for a number of years while simultaneously building a private law practice in Philadelphia. This combination of academic work and practical legal experience provided Roberts with a thorough grounding in both legal theory and the realities of courtroom practice.

Roberts developed a reputation as a skilled litigator in the Philadelphia legal community. His work as a lawyer brought him into contact with complex cases involving corporate law and criminal prosecution, and he gained experience that would prove invaluable in his later public service. During World War I, Roberts served as a special deputy attorney general for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, handling cases related to the Espionage Act. This federal prosecutorial work provided his first significant experience with government service and established his credentials as a capable and diligent public servant.

Teapot Dome Prosecution

Roberts's career took a dramatic turn in the mid-1920s when he was appointed as a special prosecutor to investigate the Teapot Dome scandal, one of the most significant political corruption cases in American history up to that time. The scandal involved the secret leasing of federal oil reserves at Teapot Dome in Wyoming and Elk Hills in California by Secretary of the Interior Albert B. Fall, who had received substantial bribes from oil executives in exchange for the leases.

Roberts was appointed alongside former Democratic senator Atlee Pomerene of Ohio to serve as special counsel to investigate and prosecute the case. His crusading prosecution of the Teapot Dome scandal brought him national attention and established his reputation as a man of integrity and legal acumen. The investigation and subsequent trials were complex affairs that spanned several years and involved prominent political and business figures. Roberts's handling of the prosecution demonstrated his ability to manage large-scale legal proceedings and his willingness to pursue justice regardless of the political power of those involved.

The Teapot Dome prosecution positioned Roberts as a figure of national standing in the legal profession. His reputation as an incorruptible prosecutor who had taken on powerful interests made him an attractive candidate for higher office, and it was this work that ultimately brought him to the attention of President Herbert Hoover.

Nomination and Confirmation to the Supreme Court

In 1930, President Herbert Hoover nominated Owen J. Roberts to serve as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. The nomination came after Hoover's earlier nominee, John J. Parker, had been rejected by the Senate. Roberts's reputation from the Teapot Dome prosecution, combined with his experience as both a practitioner and academic, made him a relatively uncontroversial choice. The Senate confirmed his nomination, and Roberts took his seat on the Court, beginning a fifteen-year tenure that would span some of the most consequential constitutional disputes in American history.

Roberts joined a Court that was already deeply divided over questions of federal power and economic regulation. The Court in the early 1930s included both staunch conservatives, sometimes referred to as the "Four Horsemen," and progressive justices such as Louis Brandeis, Harlan Fiske Stone, and Benjamin N. Cardozo. Roberts and Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes occupied positions between these two factions, making them the decisive swing votes in many closely contested cases.

The New Deal Era and the "Switch in Time"

Roberts's tenure on the Supreme Court coincided almost exactly with the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt and the sweeping legislative program known as the New Deal. The relationship between the Roberts Court and the Roosevelt administration represents one of the most dramatic periods of conflict between the judicial and executive branches in American history.

In the early years of the New Deal, Roberts frequently joined the conservative bloc in striking down federal regulatory legislation. His vote in cases such as United States v. Butler (1936), in which the Court invalidated the Agricultural Adjustment Act, placed him firmly in opposition to the administration's efforts to combat the Great Depression through expanded federal authority. During this period, Roberts was characterized by New Deal supporters as an obstructionist who stood in the way of necessary economic reform.

However, Roberts's jurisprudence underwent what appeared to be a significant shift beginning in 1937. In West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish (1937), Roberts voted to uphold a Washington state minimum wage law, reversing a position he had seemingly taken just the year before in Morehead v. New York ex rel. Tipaldo (1936). This apparent change in Roberts's voting pattern, which came at a time when President Roosevelt was threatening to "pack" the Supreme Court by adding additional justices sympathetic to the New Deal, became known colloquially as "the switch in time that saved nine."

The characterization of Roberts as shifting from "New Deal obstructionist to enabler" captures the essence of this transformation as perceived by contemporaries and subsequent historians. Whether Roberts's shift was genuinely motivated by the court-packing threat, or whether it reflected a more principled evolution in his constitutional thinking, has been a subject of extensive scholarly debate. Some historians have argued that Roberts's vote in West Coast Hotel was actually cast before Roosevelt announced his court-packing plan, suggesting that the "switch" narrative may be oversimplified. Nevertheless, the practical effect was unmistakable: after 1937, the Court ceased to strike down New Deal legislation, and Roosevelt's court-packing plan lost its political urgency.

Roberts also played a role in the development of administrative law during this period. The concept of independent federal agencies and their constitutional status was a significant issue during Roberts's tenure, and decisions from this era continue to influence debates about the separation of powers and the authority of the executive branch over independent agencies.

Landmark Opinions

Among Roberts's most enduring contributions to American constitutional law was his majority opinion in Cantwell v. Connecticut, decided on May 20, 1940. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional a Connecticut statute that required individuals making solicitations for religious or charitable purposes to obtain prior approval from a state official. Roberts, writing for a unanimous Court, held that the statute violated both the Free Exercise Clause and the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Cantwell decision was a landmark in the development of religious liberty jurisprudence in the United States. It established, for the first time, that the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment applied to state and local governments, not merely to the federal government. This process of incorporation — applying provisions of the Bill of Rights to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment — was one of the most significant constitutional developments of the twentieth century, and Roberts's opinion in Cantwell played a central role in its advancement.

Roberts also authored opinions in other significant cases during his tenure, addressing issues ranging from diversity jurisdiction in wrongful death suits to questions of federal regulatory authority.

Pearl Harbor Investigation

Following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, President Roosevelt appointed Roberts to chair a commission of inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the attack. The Roberts Commission, as it became known, was tasked with investigating the events leading up to the attack and determining whether any dereliction of duty had occurred on the part of American military commanders. The commission's report, issued in January 1942, placed significant blame on the commanders at Pearl Harbor — Admiral Husband E. Kimmel and General Walter Short — for failing to take adequate defensive measures. The Roberts Commission report was controversial and has been subject to criticism by subsequent historians and investigators, but it represented an important early effort to understand one of the most consequential military failures in American history.

Later Years on the Court and Resignation

By the mid-1940s, Roberts found himself increasingly isolated on a Court that had moved considerably to the left since his appointment. The retirements and deaths of the conservative justices he had often aligned with in the 1930s, combined with Roosevelt's appointment of a series of liberal justices, left Roberts as one of the more conservative members of the tribunal. He resigned from the Supreme Court on July 31, 1945, after fifteen years of service.

Roberts's departure from the Court was not accompanied by the accolades typically bestowed upon retiring justices. The changing composition and ideological orientation of the Court during his tenure meant that his legacy was already being reassessed even before his departure. His colleagues on the reconstituted Court did not issue the customary laudatory letter upon his resignation, an omission that reflected the tensions that had developed during his final years on the bench.

Post-Court Career

After leaving the Supreme Court, Roberts returned to the University of Pennsylvania Law School, where he served as dean. In this role, he oversaw the law school during a period of significant growth and change in American legal education, as returning veterans from World War II swelled enrollment at universities across the country. Roberts also devoted himself to various civic and international causes, including advocacy for world federalism and international cooperation in the postwar period.

Personal Life

Owen J. Roberts maintained a residence and farm in Chester Springs, Pennsylvania, in Chester County, throughout much of his adult life. The farm served as a retreat from the pressures of his professional life in Philadelphia and Washington, D.C., and Roberts was known for his attachment to the rural community there. The Owen J. Roberts School District in Chester County was later named in his honor, reflecting his significance to the local community.

Roberts died on May 17, 1955, at his home in Chester Springs, Pennsylvania, at the age of eighty. He had outlived many of his contemporaries on the Supreme Court bench and had witnessed the dramatic transformation of American constitutional law that occurred during the middle decades of the twentieth century.

Recognition

During his lifetime, Roberts received numerous honorary degrees and awards from academic institutions across the United States. A collection of honorary diplomas bestowed upon Roberts was preserved and eventually donated to the Owen J. Roberts School District in Chester County, Pennsylvania. In 2014, the school district received this treasure trove of memorabilia related to the late Supreme Court Justice, providing a tangible connection to his legacy for students and community members.

The Owen J. Roberts School District itself stands as one of the most visible forms of recognition of Roberts's contributions. The naming of a public school district after a Supreme Court Justice reflects the high regard in which Roberts was held by the residents of Chester County, where he had lived and maintained his farm for many years.

Roberts's role in the Teapot Dome prosecution and his service on the Supreme Court have ensured his place in American legal history. Legal scholars and historians continue to study his jurisprudence, particularly his role during the New Deal constitutional crisis of the 1930s.

Legacy

Owen J. Roberts's legacy in American constitutional law is complex and multifaceted. He is perhaps best remembered for the apparent shift in his voting pattern during the New Deal era — the so-called "switch in time that saved nine" — which has made him a central figure in discussions of judicial independence, political pressure on the courts, and the relationship between the Supreme Court and the elected branches of government.

His opinion in Cantwell v. Connecticut remains a foundational text in First Amendment jurisprudence, establishing the principle that the Free Exercise Clause applies to state governments and protecting the rights of religious minorities to engage in proselytizing activities without prior government approval. This decision has been cited in countless subsequent cases and continues to influence debates over the proper scope of religious liberty in the United States.

Roberts's role in the broader history of the Supreme Court is situated within one of the most transformative periods in the institution's existence. The Court over which he served underwent a fundamental reorientation during the 1930s and 1940s, moving from a posture of skepticism toward federal regulatory power to one of broad deference to legislative judgments on economic matters. Roberts was both a participant in and witness to this transformation, and his career on the bench embodies the tensions and contradictions of the era.

The characterization of Roberts as "the Justice who was of two minds" captures the enduring ambiguity of his judicial legacy. Neither a consistent conservative nor a reliable progressive, Roberts defied easy categorization during his lifetime and continues to resist simple characterization by historians and legal scholars. His willingness to shift positions on fundamental constitutional questions — whether understood as pragmatic flexibility, principled evolution, or capitulation to political pressure — ensures that his tenure on the Court remains a subject of active scholarly inquiry and debate.

Decisions from the Roberts era continue to be relevant in contemporary legal disputes, particularly those involving the scope of executive power over independent agencies and the constitutional limits of federal regulatory authority. As these questions remain at the forefront of American constitutional law, Owen J. Roberts's jurisprudence continues to be examined for the precedents and principles it established.