‘Bombshell’: John Roberts slapped with lawsuit, accused of ‘unconstitutional shadow agency’
A new lawsuit alleges the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court is running what’s being called an “unconstitutional shadow agency,” going beyond the responsibilities of the judicial branch by taking regulatory actions.
The fight was launched by America First Legal Foundation, which was started by Stephen Miller, President Donald Trump’s deputy chief of staff for policy.
Chief Justice John Roberts was cited in his capacity as the head of the U.S. Judicial Conference. Also named was Robert J. Conrad, the director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.
A report from Fox News explains: “The complaint accuses both the U.S. Judicial Conference and the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts of performing certain regulatory actions that go beyond the scope of resolving cases or controversies, or administratively supporting those actions, which they argue are the ‘core functions’ of the judiciary.”
It also charges that records of those organizations should be subject to Freedom of Information Act requirements.
The newest fight comes amid a campaign by district judges, those who run the entry level of the federal court system, to issue a long list of nationwide injunctions through which they claim the authority to make decisions for the executive branch, which by the Constitution are the responsibility of the president.
Those injunctions cover topics from deportation of illegal alien criminals to firing unwanted federal employees to handing out taxpayer cash that Trump wants to keep and use for American interests to securing the border and deciding who can claim American citizenship.
The Fox report said new fight cites “actions taken by both the Judicial Conference and Administrative Office in 2023 to ‘accommodate’ requests from Congress to investigate allegations of ethical improprieties by Justices Thomas and Alito, and subsequently to create or adopt an ‘ethics code’ for justices on the high court.”
The complaint states, “Under our constitutional tradition, accommodations with Congress are the province of the executive branch. The Judicial Conference and the Administrative Office are therefore executive agencies.”
Such a ruling would give the president more authority to deliver instructions to those organizations.
“The U.S. Judicial Conference is the national policymaking body for the courts. It is overseen by the Supreme Court’s chief justice, and tasked with making twice-yearly recommendations to Congress as needed. The Administrative Office for the U.S. Courts, meanwhile, operates under the guidance and supervision of the Judicial Conference. Its role is to provide administrative support to the federal courts on certain administrative issues and for day-to-day logistics, including setting budgets and organizing data, among other things,” Fox reported.
The filing charges that such duties are “executive functions.”
“Courts definitively do not create agencies to exercise functions beyond resolving cases or controversies or administratively supporting those functions,” the complaint said.
At the Gateway Pundit, a report said the allegations amounted to a “bombshell” against Roberts.
It characterizes the lawsuits as accusing “the powerful duo of running what AFL describes as an ‘unconstitutional shadow agency’ and violating federal transparency laws.”
It, essentially, accuses the bureaucracies of being “rogue ‘executive agencies’ that have collaborated with far-left lawmakers to wage lawfare against conservative Supreme Court justices.”
It charges, “For several years, the media and enterprising lawmakers have launched an onslaught to destroy the impartiality and political neutrality of Article III courts and, particularly, the Supreme Court. Justices Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh have all faced political and physical threats because of the politicization and weaponization of the law. This lawfare has been led by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse and Representative Hank Johnson, relying upon an ideologically favorable legacy media to falsely accuse Justices Thomas and Alito of ethical improprieties. Their aim was simple: to chill the judicial independence of these Supreme Court Justices.”
The court case follows requests by AFL for information, and arguments that the bureaucracies must comply with FOIA because they exercise “executive powers.”
In the face of the agencies’ refusal, the case was filed.