By Jonathan Stempel 

WASHINGTON, Nov 27 (Reuters) - U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts publicly dressed down an Obama administration lawyer on Tuesday, demanding that he be upfront about policy changes from one president to another and not hide behind language suggesting something else.

It wasn't the first time some of the nine justices had questioned the consistency of positions taken by the Office of the Solicitor General, which argues cases on the government's behalf. Tuesday's critique accusing the office of effectively camouflaging a new position may be the harshest yet.

Roberts said he objected to the administration's failure in a court filing to acknowledge directly that its secretary of labor had reversed the policy on reimbursements under company medical plans of her predecessor in the Bush administration.

"You cite the prior secretary by name, and then you say, the secretary is now of the (different) view. I found that a little disingenuous," Roberts told Joseph Palmore, an assistant to Solicitor General Donald Verrilli.

"It's not the same person," Roberts said during oral argument at the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday.

Such criticism of the solicitor general's office could prompt greater skepticism among justices about the influence of that office, whose guidance the court frequently seeks even where the government is not a party to a lawsuit.

There was no suggestion that the Obama administration was trying to confront the court on a substantive issue.

Rather, what seemed to irk the chief justice, himself a former deputy solicitor general, was that the administration was not forthright about its new legal approach.

Nanda Chitre, a Justice Department spokeswoman, had no immediate comment.

FOOTNOTE 9

The chief justice was irritated by Footnote 9 in a brief from the solicitor general over whether a US Airways medical plan should be reimbursed for costs it paid to an employee who later recovered damages from a third party for his injuries.

That footnote referred to a case from 2004, when former president George W. Bush's secretary of labor Elaine Chao had urged that a court should in some circumstances enforce a medical plan's plain terms.

It went on to say that "upon further reflection" and in light of later case law, Obama Labor Secretary Hilda Solis had taken a position that might be more favorable to the employee.

Roberts would have none of it.

"It would be more candid for your office to tell us when there is a change in position that it's not based on further reflection of the secretary," he told Palmore. "We are seeing a lot of that lately. It's perfectly fine if you want to change your position, but don't tell us it's because the secretary has reviewed the matter further, the secretary is now of the view. Tell us it's because there is a new secretary."

"With respect, Mr. Chief Justice, the law has changed since that brief was filed nearly 10 years ago," Palmore said.

"Then tell us the law has changed," Roberts responded.

Verrilli faced similar questioning in the first case argued this term, when he advocated greater leeway for victims of human rights abuses abroad to pursue U.S. lawsuits accusing foreign companies of aiding in the atrocities.

"Why should we listen to you rather than the solicitors general who took the opposite position?" Justice Antonin Scalia asked Verrilli during the Oct. 1 oral argument.

"We think they are persuasive, your honor," Verrilli said.

"Oh, okay," Scalia said amid much laughter in the courtroom.

That wasn't enough for Roberts. "Your successors may adopt a different view," he then told Verrilli. "Justice Scalia's point means whatever deference you are entitled to is compromised by the fact that your predecessors took a different position."

(Additional reporting by Joan Biskupic)

Follow us on Twitter @ReutersLegal | Like us on Facebook