Supreme Court

Stephen Miller’s conservative legal advocacy group America First Legal Foundation (AFLF) has filed a lawsuit against Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., and Robert J. Conrad, in their official capacities as the Presiding Officer of the Judicial Conference; and Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, respectively, for allegedly violating federal transparency laws.

The lawsuit also accuses the duo of cozying up with far-left lawmakers to wage lawfare against conservative Supreme Court justices to undermine the independence of the Supreme Court.

AFL is going straight to the heart of the left’s lawfare.

We’re suing the Judicial Conference and the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts.

Americans deserve transparency and accountability. https://t.co/QqILaVS0kQ

— America First Legal (@America1stLegal) April 25, 2025

The lawsuit stems from a Freedom of Information (FOIA) request the AFLF made regarding communications between the far-left lawmakers Senator Sheldon Whitehouse and Rep. Hank Johnson and the Judicial Conference and the Administrative Office. However, the policymaking bodies outrightly rejected the requests by claiming they were exempt from such FOIA demands.

Ironically, the Judicial Conference and the Administrative Office have honored several “congressional oversight requests” by the far-Left lawmakers to aid them in going after Justices Thomas and Alito.

“When it comes to government transparency, you can’t have your cake and eat it too,” remarked Dan Epstein, America First Legal Vice President. 

According to the lawsuit, Sen. Whitehouse and Rep. Johnson have for several years waged lawfare against Supreme Court Justices Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh, and in the process, enjoyed favorable legacy media coverage. Similarly, the Judicial Conference and the Administrative Office have acted as the “central levers” for the lawmakers’ persistent lawfare campaign. 

“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 lawsuit explains that Whitehouse and Johnson have accused Justice Thomas of “acting willfully to violate the Ethics in Government Act and directed the U.S. Department of Justice to criminally investigate the matter.” Similarly, Sen. Johnson filed an ethics complaint against Justice Alito, accusing him of violating “several canons of judicial ethics.” The justices have been accused by far-left lawmakers of not being forthcoming about their financial relationships.

Meanwhile, AFLF argues that the Judicial Conference and the Administrative Office must comply with FOIA requests because they are not part of the judiciary but the executive branch and exercise executive powers, including issuing binding regulations.

“Thus, the Judicial Conference and Administrative Office exercise executive functions and are accordingly subject to FOIA. Accordingly, their refusal to comply with AFL’s FOIA request is unlawful.”

It also argues that the two bodies should be declared “independent agencies within the executive branch” and the President should have the authority to appoint and remove the Judicial Conference’s Presiding Officer and the Director of the Administrative Office.

“In AFL’s view, this is also sufficient to put the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts — as it is overseen by the Judicial Conference — under the Executive Branch as well.

[AFL] argued that proposed framework ‘preserves the separation of powers but also keeps the courts out… pic.twitter.com/Q0o0pBGkXF

— America First Legal (@America1stLegal) May 6, 2025

“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 agencies must be overseen by the President, not the courts. Judicial relief here not only preserves the separation of powers but also keeps the courts out of politics.”

One of the strangest things in American politics is the partisan debate over the issue of whether voters should have to produce identification when they show up at the polls. Democrat politicos constantly argue against states that want to require ID to vote in elections, branding those efforts as “racist.” 

It’s never explained, of course, why asking for a driver’s license or state ID card disadvantages black or Hispanic voters.. But the way Democrats talk you’d think it was the equivalent of a poll tax designed to keep “po, ignunt” black folks from being able to exercise their franchise. 

But how? Do black people truly not have driver’s licenses? Is there something about being dark-skinned that makes it hard or impossible to get the standard ID that everyone uses daily to buy booze, or cigarettes, or any other adult item? Obviously not, but in a country where the left half is primed to see whites as devils fixin’ to git them blacks, it plays well. 

Vice President and now Democrat Party presidential nominee—she who has suddenly “become black” despite building her image on her Indian heritage on her mother’s side—Kamal Harris recently came under fire for requiring identification to enter one of her rallies in Phoenix. The least-popular vice president in history has a history of calling voter ID laws racist. 

Well, the worm has turned at the Supreme Court, which just issued a 5-4 decision allowing an even more “controversial” requirement to go forward in Arizona. SCOTUS said Arizona can force potential voters to prove that they are U.S. citizens if the would-be voter tries to register to vote using Arizona’s state form. 

Over 40,000 people are registered to vote in federal elections in Arizona who haven’t provided proof of citizenship.

The vote was 5-4 on allowing limited enforcement of the law. One conservative Justice, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, joined the three liberal justices in dissent. The court, in a brief order, did not explain its reasoning for how four justices could possibly take this stance.

It’s incredible that such an issue had to be litigated all the way to the Supreme Court. It raises the question: “Who thinks there’s something wrong with making sure illegal aliens don’t vote in U.S. elections?” Democrats, that’s who.

Let’s look at what social media users have to say about it on X (formerly Twitter). 

It’s hard to argue against this guy’s point:

It boggles the rational mind:

We’d like to agree with this next one, and in a sane world, she would be right. But when one side of the aisle sees illegal aliens as a means to getting more Congressional seats when the census comes (did you know that districting is done off census numbers, which count and include everyone, even illegal aliens?), it’s easy to see why Democrats don’t like proof of citizenship laws.