CBA Record July-August 2026

LEADERSHIP in Practice

Common Threads in Leadership at the U.S. Supreme Court By Daniel A. Cotter

L eadership in the courtroom, especially at the Supreme Court level, rarely comes from volume, ideology, or even intellect. The justices remembered as true judicial leaders often shared a quieter set of traits and capabilities: institutional humility, courage under pressure, coalition-building, prepara tion, integrity, and an understanding that the Court’s legitimacy is as important as any single case. Chief Justice Earl Warren remains perhaps the clearest example. He understood that leadership on the Court meant more than counting votes. In Brown v. Board of Education , he worked patiently and personally to secure unanimity, believing that a fractured Court would weaken both the decision and the nation’s acceptance of it. He recognized that the Court was not merely resolving a legal dispute; it was speaking to the country at a moment of profound constitutional crisis. His leadership lay in persuasion, empathy, and strategic patience. Chief Justice Warren also demonstrated another hallmark of judicial leadership years later during the controversy surround ing Justice Abe Fortas. Faced with ethical questions involving Justice Fortas, Chief Justice Warren reportedly attempted to manage the situation institutionally and discreetly, hoping to preserve confidence in the Court during a politically volatile era. Whether one agrees with every aspect of his handling of the matter, it reflected a recurring leadership tension for chief justices: protecting the institution’s integrity while navigating deeply human failings within it. Supreme Court leadership was on dramatic display during the Watergate scandal of the 1970s. Under Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, the Court issued a unanimous decision in United States

v. Nixon ordering President Nixon to comply with the subpoena for the White House tapes. Chief Justice Burger, appointed by Nixon himself, understood the importance of institutional cred ibility. The unanimous opinion reinforced the principle that no person, not even the president, stands above the law. Judicial leadership sometimes requires separating personal relationships or ideological expectations from constitutional duty. Other chief justices displayed leadership differently. John Marshall built consensus through intellectual force and clar ity, transforming the Court into a coequal branch. William H. Rehnquist was widely respected for administrative efficiency and collegiality, even among ideological opponents. Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., has repeatedly spoken about safeguarding the judiciary as an independent institution, often emphasizing incrementalism and institutional legitimacy in periods of politi cal polarization. Across eras, a common thread is clear: Great judicial lead ers understand that courts ultimately depend on public trust. The strongest judges are often those who recognize that how a court reaches a decision can matter nearly as much as the deci sion itself.

Daniel A. Cotter, a member with Aronberg Goldgehn, is a member of the CBA Record Editorial Board.

38 July/August 2026