Stephen Miller’s AFL Sues Chief Justice Roberts, Alleging Judicial Overreach, and FOIA Non-Compliance

 

Stephen Miller, founder of America First Legal (AFL)

(Credit: USA Herald)

 

According to Samuel Lopez of the USA Herald, Stephen Miller (above) has filed a lawsuit against Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Robert J. Conrad, Director of the Administrative Office of the US Courts. The suit was filed on April 22^nd, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia accusing both men of running “an unconstitutional shadow agency” that oversteps judicial boundaries and violates federal transparency laws. The case is being presided over by U.S. District Judge Trevor N. McFadden, a Trump appointee and guarantees to ignite a fierce debate over judicial independence, executive authority and the (obvious) politicization of America’s judicial system.

The heart of the lawsuit is the claim that the Judicial Conference of the United States, chaired by Roberts and its administrative arm, the Administrative Office of the US Courts are not “judicial entities” – and therefore neutral – but rather they are “executive agencies” that are wielding power constitutionally belonging to the Executive Branch and the President. As a result, these bodies, collaborating with leftist lawmakers such as Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse and Representative Hank Johnson help continue to fuel the “lawfare” campaign against both the Trump Administration and conservative Supreme Court Justices such as Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Bret Kavanaugh. The AFL argues that this overreach not only undermines the separation of powers but also makes these entities subject to compliance with the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), something traditionally inapplicable to the judiciary.

The lawsuit’s origins trace back to AFL’S FOIA requests seeking communications between the Judicial Conference, the Administrative Office and lawmakers Whitehouse and Johnson, progressive Democrats who spearheaded investigations into alleged ethical lapses by Justices Thomas and Alito, accusing them of conflicts of interest tied to their personal and financial dealings. When both entities rejected AFL’s FOIA requests, claiming exemption from the law, AFL responded with a lawsuit claiming that both entities perform ”executive functions” engaging in “regulator actions” responding to congressional oversight and issuing binding policies that, under the U.S. Constitution, fall under the Executive Branch’s purview. In the filing, the AFL asserted:

“Under our constitutional tradition, accommodations with Congress are the province of the Executive Branch. The Judicial Conference and the Administrate Office are therefore Executive agencies.”

The claim then is made that as the two agencies are exercising “executive powers,” they must comply with FOIA, a law that mandates transparency for executive branch agencies. The complaint further asserts, “Judicial relief here not only preserves the separation of powers but also keeps the courts out of politics.” And, of course, this is essential being that in the short time of Donald Trump second term as President, virtually hundreds of lawsuits have been filed against his efforts in that office not just by politicians but members of the courts and the rest of the so-called “justice system.” It is amazing indeed that the man has been able to accomplish what he has been able to accomplish! It is interesting to note that Trump’s action to remove so-called “trans” people from the military withstood one such court challenge, the winning vote coming from Justice Thomas, an apparent target that brought about the original complaint.

It is also interesting to note Chief Justice Robert’s response to the President’s request that one judge be impeached for his obvious interference with the actions of the Executive Branch. Roberts stated that “For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision.” However, alas, the Chief Justice was not being honest with that reply. Mr. Trump was not “disagreeing with a judicial decision,” he was pointing out that the “judge” involved had no right to involve himself in the case in the first place and thus his “judicial decision” was itself null and void on its face! Given that Roberts is an intelligent jurist, it is hard to credit that he himself believed his argument as it was not based upon the case at hand!

This is a critical issue at a critical time. A ruling in AFL’s favor could at the very least, cause a much more serious investigation of the ongoing “lawfare” that has been waged against President Trump from even before his election in 2016 and continues, only getting worse in this, his second term. On the other hand, a dismissal could reinforce not judicial autonomy, but the use of the Left of the courts to shut down any attempt by conservative Americans to take back their country from the clutches of the New World Order globalists who have been running things virtually since the Clinton Administration!