Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts is also boss over the U.S. court system that critics charge has exceeded its authority in an attempt to control the White House.
Allies of President Donald Trump who have dubbed themselves “the long-awaited answer to the ACLU” have sued Roberts over what they say is a brazen attempt to check the executive powers of the president. Is this a news story?
America First Legal (AFL), founded by White House aide Stephen Miller, argued in the lawsuit filed last month that the Judicial Conference of the U.S. and the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts — two key judicial branch bodies that frame policy and handle the basic functions of the federal courts — are executive branch agencies, the Democracy Docket reported.
“Such agencies must be overseen by the President, not the courts,” the group, represented by attorney Will Scolinos, claimed, adding that the lawsuit “preserves the separation of powers but also keeps the courts out of politics.”
The Judicial Conference is a policymaking body for the lower federal courts established by Congress to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. The Administrative Office handles the nuts and bolts of the federal judiciary, like budgets and organizing court data.
AFL claims in the lawsuit that the two judicial bodies are a part of the executive branch by filing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits against them. FOIA strictly applies to the executive branch and independent federal regulatory agencies, but not to Congress or the federal courts.
The AFL named Roberts as a defendant because the Judicial Conference is headed by the chief justice. It named Robert Conrad, director of the Administrative Office, as a defendant.
According to an analysis by Reason:
The basis for AFL's suit is that the Judicial Conference and Administrative Office are not part of the judiciary, but are instead executive branch agencies subject to FOIA. According to AFL, neither entity is a "court," and insofar as each has other responsibilities, including the promulgation of rules governing federal courts and responding to Congressional inquiries, each is an "agency" under FOIA. It further claims that insofar as the Chief Justice is able to appoint members of Judicial Conference committees "then he must be acting as an agency head, subjecting the Judicial Conference to the FOIA."
The AFL argues that it is necessary to bring the bodies under the executive branch because members of Congress, who have the constitutional authority to define most of the federal court system, asked the Supreme Court in 2023 to create or adopt an ethics code for justices.The request was in response to allegations that Justice Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas accepted, and did not disclose, lavish gifts from conservative figures who eventually had business before the court.
“Recently, the media and liberal lawmakers have sought to undermine the political independence of Article III Courts,” the lawsuit reads.
"The lawsuit is a continuation of the Trump Administration’s effort to break down the separation of powers and usurp the constitutional powers of the other federal branches," the Democracy Docket claimed. "In targeting the conference and administrative office, AFL is threatening both the courts’ independence and Congress’s authority to organize courts below the Supreme Court."
This is the second time AFL has attempted to FOIA the Judicial Conference and the Administrative Office. Last year, the group’s FOIA suit against the bodies quickly failed after the Supreme Court’s legal counsel said the information act did not apply to judicial branch entities.
Miller left AFL in January to rejoin the White House but has retained close ties to the group, which has not named a new president since his departure.
The following dramatization of the tensions between the Trump White House and John Roberts, which portrayed Roberts as having to appear in court without his black robe, either exaggerates or downplays the tensions between these two powerful forces.
