Legal Group Sues Chief Justice Roberts, Claims Judiciary Overstepping Constitutional Role

A legal group with close ties to President Donald Trump has filed a lawsuit against Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, alleging unconstitutional overreach by the judicial branch. The America First Legal Foundation (AFL), founded by former Trump advisor Stephen Miller, brought the case as part of a broader push to challenge judicial power following rulings that have blocked Trump-era policies.

The complaint, as reported by Fox News, names Roberts in his capacity as head of the U.S. Judicial Conference, along with Robert J. Conrad, who leads the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. AFL contends both entities have gone beyond their constitutionally permitted roles.

According to the suit, regulatory actions undertaken by the Judicial Conference and the Administrative Office stray from the judiciary’s designated duties — namely resolving legal disputes and managing internal court operations. AFL argues that by responding to congressional oversight and participating in discussions around judicial ethics, the judiciary has taken on executive functions.

One key claim involves efforts made in 2023 by Roberts and his administrative staff to respond to congressional concerns over alleged ethical misconduct involving Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. AFL cited those actions — and the broader push to establish a formal ethics code for the Court — as unconstitutional intrusions into executive territory.

“Under our constitutional tradition, accommodations with Congress are the province of the executive branch,” AFL said in its filing.
“The Judicial Conference and the Administrative Office are therefore executive agencies,” the group argued, concluding they should fall under presidential authority.

The Judicial Conference, chaired by the Chief Justice, serves as the federal judiciary’s main policymaking body, providing recommendations to Congress twice a year. The Administrative Office, which operates under the Judicial Conference, is tasked with logistical, budgetary, and operational support for the court system.

AFL attorney Will Scolinos stated in the complaint that the current setup violates the Constitution’s separation of powers. “Courts definitively do not create agencies to exercise functions beyond resolving cases or controversies or administratively supporting those functions,” the group claimed.

Scolinos insisted their proposal “preserves the separation of powers but also keeps the courts out of politics.”

The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Trevor N. McFadden, a Trump appointee.

Elsewhere on Tuesday, the Supreme Court handed the Trump administration a legal win by permitting its policy banning transgender individuals from military service to remain in effect. The 6-3 decision did not rule on the constitutional merits of the case but did allow the policy to proceed while lower court challenges continue.

“If the separation of powers means anything, the government obviously suffers irreparable harm when an unelected judge usurps the role of the political branches in operating the Nation’s armed forces,” wrote U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer.

President Trump shared news of the decision on Truth Social, celebrating the Court’s backing of his Jan. 27 executive order.

The Department of Defense followed up in February with a memo from Secretary Pete Hegseth outlining immediate separation for service members diagnosed with gender dysphoria. Those who had not attempted transition and were willing to serve under their birth sex were exempted, Courthouse News Service reported.