• Daily Dose of WTF
  • Posts
  • Trump Allies Sue Chief Justice Roberts, Argue White House Should Control Courts?!

Trump Allies Sue Chief Justice Roberts, Argue White House Should Control Courts?!

In a lawsuit dripping with WTF audacity, Stephen Miller's legal group is suing SCOTUS Chief Justice Roberts, claiming core judicial bodies are actually part of the Executive Branch and under Trump's control.

May 02, 2025

Folks, just when you thought the Trump administration's clashes with the judiciary couldn't get any more bizarre, a group founded by close Trump ally Stephen Miller has launched a legal missile aimed at the very heart of judicial independence. Forget challenging specific rulings; they're effectively arguing the White House should run the federal court system.

According to a report from Talking Points Memo, the America First Legal Foundation (AFL) – founded by Miller and known for aggressively pushing Trump's agenda in court – filed a lawsuit last week against none other than Chief Justice John Roberts and the head of the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts.

On the surface, the lawsuit pretends to be about a mundane Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. AFL wanted records about Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito and communications with Democratic lawmakers investigating alleged ethics issues and donor influence. When the judiciary's administrative bodies denied the FOIA request (arguing, like courts traditionally do, that they aren't typical executive agencies subject to FOIA), AFL sued.

But here's the Trojan horse, the absolutely bonkers legal argument hidden inside the FOIA wrapper: AFL claims the Judicial Conference (which sets policy for federal courts, headed by Roberts) and the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts (which handles the judiciary's day-to-day operations) are NOT part of the independent judicial branch for administrative purposes. Instead, the lawsuit argues, they should be considered "independent agencies within the executive branch."

Let that sink in. They are asking a judge to rule that the core administrative and policymaking bodies of the federal judiciary are actually under the authority of the President.

The WTF implications are staggering. If this outlandish legal theory were ever accepted (and legal experts quoted by TPM reacted with "dismay, disdain, and laughter," calling the claim "invalid" and "outlandish"), it would effectively destroy judicial independence. Under the conservative "unitary executive" theory (which this suit ironically twists), if these bodies are executive agencies, the President would have the power to appoint and fire their leaders, dictate their policies, and control their operations.

Imagine the White House controlling court administration, budgets, and potentially even, as the lawsuit ominously hints, things like "facility management and security" for judges. It's a recipe for presidential control over the branch of government designed to be a check on presidential power.

Legal experts see this lawsuit less as a serious legal claim (one professor told TPM "There is no chance that this will prevail") and more as a political "taunt" – another front in the escalating campaign by the Trump administration and its allies to intimidate, harass, or exert control over the judiciary. This campaign already includes ignoring court orders (like the Supreme Court's on Kilmar Abrego Garcia), DOJ prosecuting state judges over immigration issues, and even Musk's DOGE sending emails demanding judges list their accomplishments.

As one constitutional law scholar put it to TPM, the underlying message seems to be: "The Trump administration and the MAGA community will let our imaginations run wild in our attempts to figure out ways to make the life of the judiciary miserable, to the extent you push back against Trump.”

So, while wrapped in the guise of a FOIA request, this lawsuit by Stephen Miller's group represents a radical, albeit legally dubious, attack on the separation of powers, effectively arguing that the President should hold sway over the administration of the courts themselves. It's a breathtakingly audacious legal maneuver and a profound Daily Dose of WTF.

Sources: