A federal judge just slammed the door on a bold legal push by Trump allies to pry open judiciary records.
The case, driven by the America First Legal Foundation (AFL), a group with deep ties to the MAGA movement, aimed to access documents from the U.S. Judicial Conference, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, and the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, but was dismissed on Thursday by U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden.
For hardworking taxpayers, this ruling stings as a missed chance to hold judicial bureaucrats accountable, especially when millions in public funds fuel these opaque bodies with zero oversight, potentially costing us transparency and trust in a system already under scrutiny.
Earlier this year, AFL, founded by former Trump adviser Stephen Miller, filed the lawsuit arguing that these judicial entities should fall under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) due to their regulatory actions.
They pointed to 2023 moves by the Judicial Conference and Administrative Office to address congressional probes into ethical concerns surrounding Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, claiming such dealings with Congress mimic executive branch duties.
AFL insisted these groups should be treated as agencies under presidential oversight, not shielded judicial arms, but Judge McFadden, a Trump appointee no less, wasn’t buying it.
McFadden ruled that both the Judicial Conference and the Administrative Office are integral to the judicial branch, thus exempt from FOIA requests.
He argued their structure and function don’t suggest any need for presidential supervision, a sharp rebuke to AFL’s creative legal theory.
"Nothing about either entity’s structure suggests the president must supervise their employees or otherwise keep them ‘accountable,’ as is the case for executive officers," McFadden stated, tossing cold water on hopes for broader access.
Let’s unpack that—McFadden isn’t letting judicial insiders hide behind a narrow definition of “courts” while dodging accountability, but he’s also not opening the floodgates as AFL wanted.
"Indeed, if America First were right that only judges and ‘law clerks,’ who ‘directly report to the judge,’ count as part of ‘the courts,’ numerous questions arise, and senseless line drawing ensues," McFadden noted, poking holes in AFL’s logic with surgical precision.
His point? The judiciary isn’t just black-robed judges—it’s a whole machine of clerks and reporters, and FOIA exemptions cover them all, like it or not.
This dismissal lands amid simmering friction between Trump’s executive agenda and a judiciary that’s often a roadblock, with hundreds of lawsuits already challenging his flurry of executive orders this year.
For conservative parents and retirees watching from the sidelines, the legal battles piling up against Trump’s priorities signal more delays and compliance costs down the line, as federal judges pause or block key policies that could reshape daily life.
While AFL’s defeat is a setback for transparency hawks, it’s a reminder that the fight for accountability in a system many see as out-of-touch isn’t over—just hitting a brick wall for now.
