The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
America First Legal Foundation v. Chief Justice John Roberts
A FOIA lawsuit that seeks executive branch control over the Judicial Conference of the United States and Administrative Office of the United States.
Last month, with relatively little fanfare, the America First Legal Foundation filed suit against Chief Justice John Roberts, in his capacity as the presiding officer of the Judicial Conference of the United States, and Robert J. Conrad, Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. The suit is nominally seeking to enforce a document request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), but substantively raises broad separation-of-powers claims.
The suit was prompted by the refusal of the Judicial Conference and Administrative Office to respond to AFLF's FOIA requests for copies of communication with the offices of Senator Sheldon Whitehouse and Representative Hank Johnson, two legislators who have worked overtime to stir up ethical allegations against sitting Supreme Court justices. The Judicial Conference and Administrative Office rebuffed the requests on the grounds that each are exempt from FOIA.
The basis for AFLF's suit is that the Judicial Conference and Administrative Office are not part of the judiciary, but are instead executive branch agencies subject to FOIA. According to AFLF, neither entity is a "court," and insofar as each has other responsibilities, including the promulgation of rules governing federal courts and responding to Congressional inquiries, each is an "agency" under FOIA. It further claims that insofar as the Chief Justice is able to appoint members of Judicial Conference committees "then he must be acting as an agency head, subjecting the Judicial Conference to the FOIA." (Cf. Art. II, section 2, which authorizes Congress to delegate authority to appoint inferior officers to "the Courts of Law.")
The suit does not merely seek fulfillment of the FOIA requests. It seeks to have the Judicial Conference and Administrative Office are "independent agencies within the executive branch." It further suggests, but does not allege, that the President should have the power to appoint and remove the Presiding Officer of the Judicial Conference and the Director of the Administrative Office.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
O wow, it's almost as if the notion that the President can fire whoever he likes no matter what it says in the statute is stupid.
If an office is under the Executive Branch then the president must have the power to fire them per the Constitution…if you don’t want the Fed Chairman to be fired by the president then pass an amendment and obviously include impeachment to remove.
"If an office is under the Executive Branch then the president must have the power to fire them per the Constitution."
That's one view. If not one compelled by the Constitution. Also, the grounds for firing might be limited by statute.
impeachment
Something of a paper tiger currently so perhaps the amendment might strengthen things up a tad.
See below, impeachment like everything in government is inherently political. Trump deserved to be impeached but he didn’t have to be removed…once McConnell had the articles of impeachment in his hands then 17 Republican senators could have told Trump he had to drop out of the 2020 race or they would remove him. They could have gotten a huge package of Trump’s campaign promises like a $40 billion for a border wall passed to sweeten the deal for Trump so he could go out looking like a winner.
That's not how it's supposed to work.
Yes it is. The Supreme Court isn’t going to get involved and so impeachment/removal can play out however senators want it to play out. McConnell could have forced Trump to bark like a dog if he had enough senators to remove him. Johnson’s impeachment was because Republicans lost the presidency because of a stupid Lincoln move and so they trumped up charges to steal the presidency back…that’s perfectly constitutional.
If we are talking amendments, citing what impeachment now is only of limited value. We are determining what should be.
The political process works within certain constitutional norms and rules. For instance, if the Constitution openly broadened the terms of impeachment, it would be applied somewhat differently.
The application of constitutional provisions also significantly relies on the will of the people who apply them. So, yes, if we want certain impeachment applications, it will in significant part be a political battle. For instance, to get the people at large to be more concerned with enforcing judicial ethics.
Johnson was impeached because Republicans believed since they won in 1864 they should continue to hold the presidency once Lincoln was assassinated even though voters voted for Johnson as VP.
Not really -- Lincoln had run as a member of the National Union Party, as had Johnson.
Johnson was a Democrat…everyone knew he was a Democrat. The Congressmen that impeached him were Republicans…and had he been removed he would have been replaced by a Republican…makes perfect sense to me.
I don't know how responsive that is to my comment, putting aside it is overly simplistic.
The Constitution neither says nor implies any such power. And the "faithfully execute" part says that Congress makes the laws the President must follow.
The Constitution trumps any laws passed by Congress. Executive Branch is all under Trump’s power…that’s why he was able to fire Comey in 2017. Now firing Comey only to replace him with Wray is an idiotic waste of political capital…but he had the power.
Trump's ability to fire Comey, which might have been problematically done, arose from the specific terms of the office as set forth by Congress. It was not merely his inherent power under Art. II.
Maybe facilitate.
If an office is under the Executive Branch then the president must have the power to fire them per the Constitution
I'm not sure where you see that in the Constitution. In my copy of the Constitution it says that Congress makes laws and the President sees that they are faithfully executed.
Laws passed by Congress must comply with the Constitution. All of the Executive Branch can be fired by the president. Look at Secretary of State—it’s an obsolete job because of WhatsApp and Signal. Witkoff is doing the job traditionally performed by the SoS and the Senate didn’t approve him. Now doing that with SecDef would be a little more difficult because of the chain of command but I’m sure WH Counsel could figure out a way around the SecDef. For instance McGahn was appointing judges and working with Leo and McConnel that Trump had no clue about most of them. Leo had no official role in government but he was much more important with respect to judicial appointments than Trump.
It is an interpretation of the first words of Article II: The executive power shall be vested in a President . . . ." I.e., the President should have total control over all lesser executive officials, since they can only act at his direction. I don't see how the Judicial Conference or the Administrative Office of the US Courts is exercising executive power, so I think this suit is a long shot.
The argument is that, unless explicitly stated (e.g. pardons), the "executive Power" only includes powers to execute acts of Congress under the terms specified in the Acts.
Not the interpretation this Court currently adopts, but is a very convincing argument. After all, the Constitution limits the legislative and judicial powers to those enumerated.
O wow, it's almost as if the Constitution is the highest law, not a statute.
A contender for the least-suspenseful-ever wait for a legal decision.
More interesting? There was some political reason for doing this. What?
The goal is to make the judiciary subservient to Trump.
Uh no, but the goal of the judiciary for the last few months appears to be to make the chief executive subservient to the judiciary.
It's for publicity and fundraising. Attacking the courts and John Roberts is popular now with the MAGA crowd. Advocacy groups of all stripes do this stuff; think of the kids' climate case for a leftward example. A barely-colorable argument, provocative language, and a little luck with the forum is all you need to waste the courts' time for the amusement of your stupidest donors.
"worked overtime to stir up ethical allegations" -- certain justices make this extraordinarily easy, no overtime required.
Maybe someone should actually read the statute? 28 U.S. Code § 331.
People who play with matches should expect to get burned.
Roberts should have stepped in four months ago with the national injunctions -- he didn't, and now he is facing the same thing.
If the Courts want to be considered political entities -- which Roberts apparently desires -- then they will be considered political entities. And you kinda know what the unwashed masses are going to say when Roberts rules in favor of himself...
Everything in government is at heart a political entity. And everyone can use their power in order to influence politics. So Dred Scott is an example of a failed political move designed to prevent a civil war while Brown v Board of Education is an example of a successful political action by judiciary. Anytime the judiciary attempts to give the appearance of being above partisan politics it’s actually playing politics. And see Dred Scott and the civil war to see what happens when politics fail to come to a solution to an issue.
National injunctions are necessary to preserve the rights of the US citizens. Without them anyone challenging a federal order or law would have to file in all 12 circuits, making it prohibitively expensive. It is a not a good system, but better then having none.
Would you agree if Judge Ho in Texas threw out every gun control law in the whole US?
If Judge Ho got sworn in on a signed copy of Mein Kampf should he be welcome in polite company?
Yes, if only because the story attached to how he came into possession of that signed copy of Mein Kampf has got to be a good one.
Well, it doesn’t belong to him… but maybe if Mrs Judge Ho is following along there’s an early Xmas present idea
Ho is, of course, not a district court judge at all.
Then why have district courts? Make the US one district with one set of rules spread out across the country.
Federal law should not be dependent on what state you are in.
Welcome to the reality of the Rule of Men.
I know you flunked civics, but Roberts could not "step in" even if he wanted to. He is not the boss of the courts.
Roberts is not "facing" anything.
The very first sentence:
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.
This is selectively framed, including allegations that the attempt to uphold ethical standards for all is based on "false accusations" against Thomas and Alito, etc. For instance, Trump and others targeting certain judges? Not quite the concern here.
After we get that over with, the filing gets to the legal claims. Don't worry. We get back to the ideological messaging soon enough.
I am somewhat unsure about the claim that "The executive branch, on the other hand, is responsible for taking care that the laws are faithfully executed." At least, given its current behavior.
==
Reference is made to "two legislators who have worked overtime to stir up ethical allegations against sitting Supreme Court justices."
I suppose the justices are violating ethical guidelines on their own time.
One thing I always keep in mind about conservative/right wing law professors when they defend the Court from the charge that it has ethics issues is that these professors don’t teach professional responsibility.
The Judicial Branch must by necessity have its own administrative apparatus for running the court system. The Judicial Conference is an example. Just as Congress has its own administrative apparatus (the Capitol Police, the Congressional Budget Office).
What does Article III say about this?
Does it even mandate Art 3 courts?
It mandates one, which seems sufficient for Dan's argument.
Would these plaintiffs also say that clerks of court, judges’ clerks, and all other auxiliary judicial officials and employees are members of the Executive Branch and can be hired and fired by the President at will? The Judicial Branch consists only of judges, and further exists only when judges are holding trials and issuing opinions? Anyone not a judge and any judge doing any other activity is subject to the President’s authority and the President can decide at will that someone else should be doing the job or the activity instead?
That seems to be implication of the argument.