A new legal challenge set sights on Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts with a bid to expose the “ideological capture by the left” amid rampant lawfare.
While often seen as badges of honor in the culture war, being at the forefront of conservatism often means facing partisan attacks that include lawsuits and investigations spurred on by corporate media narratives. Referencing such “weaponization of the law” against certain Supreme Court justices, the America First Legal Foundation took aim at authorities exercised by Roberts, which it believes fall under the discretion of the executive branch.
The group, founded by White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Stephen Miller, specifically called out the chief justice in his capacity as the head of the U.S. Judicial Conference as it also named Administrative Office of the U.S. Court Director Robert J. Conrad and demanded actions taken in those roles be subject to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.
AFL said the “lawsuit seeks to expose the agencies’ ideological capture by the left and restore accountability to the American people,” as it seeks communications between Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D), Georgia Rep. Hank Johnson (D), the Judicial Conference and the Administrative Office regarding U.S. Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas
“Under our constitutional tradition, accommodations with Congress are the province of the executive branch,” stated the lawsuit. “The Judicial Conference and the Administrative Office are, therefore, executive agencies. Such agencies must be overseen by the President, not the courts.”
“‘Under our constitutional tradition, accommodations with Congress are the province of the executive branch,’ AFL said, adding: ‘The Judicial Conference and the Administrative Office are therefore executive agencies,’ and must therefore be overseen by the president, not the… pic.twitter.com/yeG77XCrIu
— America First Legal (@America1stLegal) May 6, 2025
In supporting their claim, AFL argued that regulatory actions taken by the agencies went beyond the core functions of the judiciary — “resolving cases or controversies or administratively supporting those functions” — and as such should be subject to FOIA requests.
“Courts definitively do not create agencies to exercise functions beyond resolving cases or controversies or administratively supporting those functions,” wrote AFL attorney Will Scolinos in the suit as he argued the conference performed “executive functions” which require them to be overseen by executive officers “appointed and accountable to other executive officers.”
A statement from AFL Vice President Dan Epstein asserted, “When it comes to government transparency, you can’t have your cake and eat it too. The Judicial Conference and the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts accommodated several congressional oversight requests by lawmakers intent on claiming Justices Thomas and Alito had engaged in ethical improprieties. In addition to the manner of appointments to these agencies and their other responsibilities, accommodating congressional requests — or issuing subpoenas or engaging in notice and comment rulemaking — is not the nature of the courts but of executive agencies.”
“As such, those agencies are accountable to public discourse through [FOIA],” continued Epstein. “Justices Thomas and Alito were targets of critics’ claims that they failed to be transparent about their financial relationships. Ironically, the Judicial Conference and the Administrative Office, captured by those same critics, are now refusing to be transparent themselves.”
Scolinos argued that the proposal from the AFL “preserves the separation of powers but also keeps the courts out of politics.”
As it happened, the suit was filed shortly after Roberts and all associate justices — save Thomas and Alito — had agreed to put a halt to the deportation of illegal aliens as part of a suit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union.
Writing for the dissent, Alito contended, “I refused to join the Court’s order because we had no good reason to think that, under the circumstances, issuing an order at midnight was necessary or appropriate.”
The justice also stated, “Both the Executive and the Judiciary have an obligation to follow the law.”
AFL’s case was assigned to U.S. District Judge Trevor N. McFadden, who was appointed by Trump in 2017 to the District of Columbia.
Native of Brooklyn, NY, Kevin Haggerty is a graduate of Hunter College where he studied Cultural Anthropology and Geography. An avid reader and truth seeker, he currently resides in Texas with his wife and their dog and, when he isn't researching current events and their impacts, you'll find him spending time with friends and family or working on his next novel.
- Trump calls for ‘major investigation’ into Springsteen, Beyonce, Oprah for ‘corrupt, unlawful’ contributions to Kamala - May 19, 2025
- Popular weight-loss meds also curb alcoholism, tests show - May 19, 2025
- Starbucks barista shares justification for going on strike over dress code; two words come to mind - May 19, 2025
Comment
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.