In a bold legal strike against one of the highest institutions in American government, Stephen Miller’s America First Legal (AFL) has filed a lawsuit against Chief Justice John Roberts and Robert J. Conrad, the Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, accusing them of operating what AFL calls an “unconstitutional shadow agency.”
The lawsuit, filed April 22, targets the Judicial Conference of the United States—chaired by Roberts—and its administrative arm, accusing both of behaving more like executive agencies than neutral judicial entities. According to AFL, these bodies have violated federal transparency laws by shielding their communications from Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, all while actively collaborating with far-left politicians to launch political attacks on conservative Supreme Court justices.
“For several years, the media and enterprising lawmakers have launched an onslaught to destroy the impartiality and political neutrality of Article III courts,” the complaint states. It singles out Senator Sheldon Whitehouse and Representative Hank Johnson as key players behind this effort, accusing them of using politically motivated ethics complaints to smear Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh.
AFL’s legal argument hinges on the claim that the Judicial Conference and the Administrative Office are functioning as executive agencies—something the Constitution strictly limits. Because these agencies have issued binding regulations, responded to congressional oversight, and managed judicial administration with political consequences, AFL argues they are performing executive duties and must therefore comply with FOIA.
“The Judicial Conference and Administrative Office are central levers for Senator Whitehouse and Representative Johnson’s lawfare enterprise,” the lawsuit says. “Such agencies must be overseen by the President, not the courts.”
AFL submitted FOIA requests to uncover communications between these agencies and congressional Democrats, only to be stonewalled with the claim that FOIA doesn’t apply to judicial entities. AFL disagrees, arguing that since these bodies aren’t acting like courts—but rather like unaccountable executive arms—they fall under the law’s transparency requirements.
This lawsuit could have massive implications for the separation of powers and the growing trend of political lawfare against conservative judges. If successful, it would not only expose the inner workings of what AFL calls a “covert, unelected administrative state” within the judiciary—it could set a precedent that reins in judicial activism cloaked in administrative function.
And for a Supreme Court under siege, it may be just the legal shake-up that’s long overdue.