A legal organization supportive of Trump, established by former White House aide Stephen Miller, has initiated a lawsuit against Chief Justice John Roberts of the Supreme Court, representing a challenging attempt by Trump supporters to contest judicial decisions that have impeded significant executive measures.
The lawsuit, initiated by the America First Legal Foundation, targets Chief Justice Roberts in his capacity as the head of the U.S. Judicial Conference, along with Robert J. Conrad, the director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, as reported by Fox News.
The complaint asserts that both the Judicial Conference and the Administrative Office have undertaken regulatory actions that surpass their constitutional authority, claiming that such actions are beyond the judiciary’s fundamental duties of adjudicating cases and providing administrative support.
Furthermore, the lawsuit argues that the records held by the U.S. Judicial Conference, under Roberts’ leadership, ought to be accessible to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests due to the alleged regulatory overreach.
In its legal action, America First Legal referenced measures implemented in 2023 by both the Judicial Conference and the Administrative Office to address congressional inquiries regarding purported ethical violations by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. The organization also highlighted initiatives by these entities to formulate or endorse an ‘ethics code’ for Supreme Court justices as a component of its allegations.
According to our constitutional tradition, it is the responsibility of the executive branch to negotiate accommodations with Congress,” stated the AFL, further noting that “the Judicial Conference and the Administrative Office are thus considered executive agencies and should be under the oversight of the president rather than the judiciary.
The U.S. Judicial Conference functions as the primary policymaking entity for the federal judiciary. Under the leadership of the Chief Justice, it is tasked with providing biannual recommendations to Congress as deemed necessary, as noted by Fox.
The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts operates under the guidance of the Judicial Conference, offering administrative assistance to the federal court system. Its responsibilities encompass budget management, logistical coordination, and data compilation, along with various other operational tasks.
Under the leadership of attorney Will Scolinos, the plaintiffs representing AFL contended in the lawsuit that the responsibilities of the Judicial Conference are classified as ‘executive functions.’ Consequently, the AFL asserts that these functions should be overseen by executive officers who are appointed and held accountable by other executive officers.
On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court, with a decisive 6-3 majority, permitted the Trump administration to implement its prohibition on transgender military personnel.
The ruling by the Supreme Court represents a considerable victory for the White House, despite not tackling the core issues of the case or the executive order issued by President Donald Trump on January 27, which prohibits transgender individuals from serving in the United States military.
U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer stated in his filing, “The government clearly experiences irreparable damage when an unelected judge oversteps by taking on the responsibilities of the political branches in managing the Nation’s armed forces, if the separation of powers holds any significance.”
The president commemorated the decision by sharing a post on his Truth Social account that included a report outlining the triumph.
In February, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth released a memorandum that disqualified service members diagnosed with gender dysphoria, mandating their prompt separation from military service. The policy provided an exception for those with gender dysphoria who had not pursued any transition and desired to serve in accordance with their assigned sex at birth, as reported by Courthouse News Service.
