Lawsuit Targets Chief Justice Roberts Over Judiciary’s Role in Ethics Oversight

A conservative legal group has filed a federal lawsuit against Chief Justice John Roberts and another top judicial official, arguing that the judiciary has overstepped its constitutional authority by engaging in activities that should fall under the executive branch, Fox News reports.

The lawsuit, filed by the America First Legal Foundation (AFL), names Roberts in his role as head of the US Judicial Conference, and Robert J. Conrad, director of the Administrative Office of the US Courts. The complaint alleges that both entities have performed regulatory functions beyond their judicial or administrative roles, thereby operating outside the scope of the Constitution’s separation of powers.

At the heart of the lawsuit is the claim that certain records held by the Judicial Conference — the national policymaking body for the federal courts — should be subject to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), typically applicable to executive agencies. AFL argues that recent activities, including cooperation with congressional investigations and the development of a Supreme Court ethics code, are fundamentally executive actions.

“Under our constitutional tradition, accommodations with Congress are the province of the executive branch,” AFL stated. “The Judicial Conference and the Administrative Office are therefore executive agencies” and must be supervised accordingly by the executive branch.

The Judicial Conference is traditionally overseen by the Chief Justice of the United States and is responsible for making biannual policy recommendations to Congress. The Administrative Office of the US Courts provides logistical and administrative support, including budget planning and data management.

The AFL’s complaint focuses on actions taken in 2023 by the Judicial Conference and the Administrative Office to address congressional concerns regarding alleged ethics violations by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. These actions included supporting congressional review and establishing an internal code of ethics for the high court — initiatives that AFL contends fall outside the judiciary’s jurisdiction.

“The courts definitively do not create agencies to exercise functions beyond resolving cases or controversies or administratively supporting those functions,” AFL argued. “These are executive functions, and they must be carried out by officers who are appointed and accountable under the executive branch.”

The lawsuit was filed in the US District Court for the District of Columbia and will be overseen by Judge Trevor N. McFadden, a Trump appointee. AFL attorney Will Scolinos emphasized that the group’s goal is to preserve the separation of powers while keeping the judiciary out of political entanglements.

“This framework keeps the courts focused on their core mission — interpreting and applying the law — without drifting into policymaking or regulatory roles,” Scolinos said.