A conservative legal group with deep ties to President Donald Trump has launched a high-stakes legal challenge that could upend the balance of power between the executive and judicial branches of the U.S. government. The America First Legal Foundation (AFLF), founded by Trump homeland security advisor and White House deputy chief of staff for policy Stephen Miller, filed a lawsuit last week against Chief Justice John Roberts and the director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, aiming to bring two of the federal judiciary’s central governing bodies under the direct control of the White House.
The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, argues that the Judicial Conference of the United States, the federal judiciary’s main policy-making body, and its Administrative Office should not be considered part of the judicial branch. Instead, AFLF contends these entities are “independent executive agencies” and thus subject to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and presidential oversight.
AFLF’s complaint asserts that the Judicial Conference and Administrative Office perform regulatory and administrative functions that go beyond the core judicial role of adjudicating cases. The group claims that, under recent Supreme Court rulings on the separation of powers, these offices should be overseen by the President rather than the Chief Justice, who currently appoints and removes their leaders.
If successful, the lawsuit would shift control over the judiciary’s support agencies-including hiring, investigations, and rulemaking-from the Chief Justice to the President, dramatically increasing executive influence over the federal courts.
The legal action stems from AFLF’s FOIA requests for records of communications between the Judicial Conference, the Administrative Office, and Democratic lawmakers Senator Sheldon Whitehouse and Representative Hank Johnson. These lawmakers have been vocal critics of Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, raising concerns about undisclosed gifts and ethical improprieties.
Both the Judicial Conference and the Administrative Office denied AFLF’s FOIA requests, citing longstanding legal precedent that exempts them from FOIA as “courts of the United States.” AFLF’s lawsuit challenges this exemption, arguing that these offices are not courts but federal agencies created by Congress and thus must comply with FOIA and executive oversight.
Legal scholars and court observers have described the lawsuit as a radical attempt to erode judicial independence, warning that it could allow a future president to stack the judiciary’s administrative bodies with loyalists, investigate judges for unfavorable rulings, and alter court procedures for political advantage. Critics note that such a shift would undermine the judiciary’s ability to function as an independent check on executive power.
