Chief Justice John Roberts Reflects on Retirement, Health, and Public Service

During a recent public appearance in Buffalo, New York, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts spoke candidly about the topic of retirement and aging in the judiciary. Addressing a gathering of judges and legal professionals to mark the 125th anniversary of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York, Roberts provided insight into how he views the responsibilities of his role, personal health, and the importance of knowing when it might be time to step down.

Although Roberts made it clear that he has no current plans to retire, he revealed that he has taken thoughtful steps to prepare for any potential future decline in his health or ability to serve effectively.

“I’ve sat down with two close friends and told them, ‘If the time comes when I’m no longer fully capable, I want you to tell me,’” Roberts shared with a smile. “There was a long pause, and both of them looked at me and said, ‘It’s time to go.’ So I just said, ‘Alright, never mind.’”

The lighthearted exchange drew laughter from the audience, but it also highlighted a serious and self-aware approach to the responsibilities of serving on the nation’s highest court.

Roberts, who is 70 years old, has served on the Supreme Court since 2005 and remains one of its younger members. He emphasized that he feels healthy and capable, and that retirement is not on his radar. “I’m going out feet first,” he joked, before acknowledging that stepping down would be the right course of action if he ever became a burden to the court.

“I say that now,” he added, “but if your health changes, or if you realize you’re no longer helping the institution, then it’s time.”

The Chief Justice’s remarks come at a time when questions about age and longevity in public service are gaining more attention. Despite this, Roberts downplayed the idea that age is a major concern at the Supreme Court, stating that it has only occasionally posed a challenge in the court’s history.

“There have been times when someone may have stayed a little longer than ideal, but even then, the court has always managed to work things out among colleagues,” he said. “It’s not something I see as a significant issue going forward.”

During his visit to Buffalo, Roberts also took time to reflect on his personal connection to the area. He visited his childhood home and shared fond memories of growing up there. The event, attended by members of the legal community, offered a more personal glimpse into the life of the nation’s top judicial officer.

While the topic of retirement for other justices occasionally arises in public discourse, Roberts avoided delving into any specific colleagues or political discussions. Instead, he reiterated a guiding principle he has long upheld: decisions in the judiciary should not be influenced by political pressure.

“In our system, impeachment or forced resignation is not a way to disagree with a court ruling,” Roberts said. “That’s not how the rule of law works.”

The conversation surrounding judicial tenure is not new. Justices are appointed for life, and while this allows them to serve without the influence of short-term political trends, it also places great trust in individual judgment regarding when to retire. Roberts’ comments reflect a commitment to that trust and the seriousness with which he approaches his duty.

Other members of the court have also expressed intentions to continue serving, with both conservative and liberal justices recently confirming they have no plans to step down. The consensus among many appears to be that as long as health permits and the ability to serve effectively remains, the work continues.

Roberts’ approach—asking trusted friends to speak up if they see changes he might not—offers a model of humility and responsibility. It underscores the human side of the judiciary, reminding the public that behind the robes are individuals doing their best to serve with honor, awareness, and integrity.

As the Chief Justice put it, “The role we play matters deeply, and we owe it to the institution—and the country—to know when we’re helping and when we’re not.”