Is the Roberts Court Really a Court?

When facing a question that the law does not clearly answer, courts are generally obligated to resolve legal disputes by examining, interpreting, and applying prior positive law such as text and precedent. This Article argues that three cases decided by the Roberts Court – Gonzales v. Carhart, District of Columbia v. Heller, and Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission – exemplify the Supreme Court’s propensity for disregarding prior positive law when deciding cases. The Author contends that the Roberts Court, quite possibly like all the Supreme Courts before it, is not a “court” at all because it does not take prior law seriously and does not transparently provide true justifications for its conclusions