A conservative legal group, helmed by former Trump aide Stephen Miller, has initiated a bold legal challenge against Chief Justice John Roberts. The group alleges that recent ethics investigations involving Supreme Court justices have overstepped constitutional boundaries. This lawsuit, now in the hands of U.S. District Judge Trevor N. McFadden, a Trump appointee, questions the actions of the Judicial Conference and its cooperation with Congress in investigating Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito for alleged ethics violations.
The investigation has stirred controversy, with accusations of judicial conflicts of interest surfacing and prompting calls for a code of ethics tailored for Supreme Court justices. The America First Legal (AFL) group argues that the Judicial Conference and the Administrative Office are overreaching by aiding Congress and working to develop such a code, thus performing functions akin to those of the executive branch.
"Under our constitutional tradition, accommodations with Congress are the province of the executive branch," AFL contended. As a result, they claim that these judicial agencies should be reclassified as executive entities, subjecting them to presidential oversight and public transparency laws, such as the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
The suit specifically seeks to compel the disclosure of records held by the Judicial Conference, asserting that they should be accessible under FOIA due to the agencies' involvement in regulatory or policymaking functions that extend beyond adjudicating legal disputes. The Judicial Conference operates as the policymaking body of the federal judiciary, typically offering biannual recommendations to Congress. Under its guidance, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts oversees non-judicial responsibilities, including budget planning and court data management.
AFL attorney Will Scolinos has articulated that the Judicial Conference's role in ethics oversight exhibits executive authority, which courts are not authorized to wield. "Courts definitively do not create agencies to exercise functions beyond resolving cases or controversies or administratively supporting those functions," the complaint states. Scolinos also highlighted that situating these functions under presidential oversight would uphold the separation of powers while keeping courts out of political entanglements.
This lawsuit is part of a broader initiative by Trump-aligned groups to counteract the judicial and legislative examination of Supreme Court justices. Although legal experts consider the suit's chances of success to be slim, AFL is determined to test the boundaries of judicial authority and advocate for increased transparency in the Supreme Court's administrative operations.