Latest news with #JudicialConference
Daily Mail
25-05-2025
- Politics
- Daily Mail
Federal judges want to build a force of armed private security under wild plan to take on Trump
Federal judges are considering hiring armed private security forces amid fears that US Marshals will not protect them because they work for Donald Trump. The judiciary has been dealing with rising number of threats against magistrates who have ruled against the Trump administration's agenda. Data from the agency show threat investigations against federal judges and prosecutors nearly tripled from 2019 to 2023. Some judges are concerned the security provided by the Marshals Service will not be enough to protect them, or that the White House will revoke their services as retaliation for their rulings. The idea for private security came up in a series of closed-door meetings in March, when a group of roughly 50 judges met in Washington for a semiannual meeting of the Judicial Conference, a policymaking body for the federal judiciary, reported The Wall Street Journal. Even Chief Justice John Roberts heard concerns from judges over a breakfast in a meeting room in the Supreme Court. While the Supreme Court has its own police force, other federal judges are protected by the Marshals Service, which reports to Attorney General Pam Bondi. On Thursday, Senate Democrats introduce legislation to transfer control of the Marshals Service to the judiciary, reported CBS News. 'Since 1789, the U.S. Marshals have valiantly protected our nation's judges and enforced court orders. But their dual accountability to the executive branch and the judicial branch paves the way toward a constitutional crisis,' said Sen. Cory Booker. Judge John Coughenour of the Western District of Washington, who had the SWAT team called on him, called it 'wonderful idea.' 'There's never been any reason in the 43 years that I've been on the bench to worry that the Marshals Service would do whatever was appropriate—until recent years,' Coughenour said. Members of the federal judiciary asked lawmakers to increase security funding up to $892 million, up 19 percent from the current fiscal year, to enable the court system to respond to rising threats directed at judges and to ensure their safety and that of their families. The Trump administration has not said it has any intentions of weaken protections for judges saying in a statement to WSJ that marshals 'will continue to protect the safety and security of federal judges.' 'Any suggestion to the contrary is not only absurd but wrong,' the official said. A spokesperson for the Marshals Service said that the 'security of our federal judiciary is a cornerstone of our nation's democracy, and the marshals take that responsibility very seriously. Federal judges make hard decisions based on the rule of law in large part because the marshals ensure they can make these decisions without fear, intimidation, or retaliation.' Reuters identified at least a dozen judges who, after ruling against the White House, have had pizzas delivered to their homes by anonymous senders. 'They want to let you know that they know where you live, and they want to let you know they're capable of violence and harm,' said one judge who received the pizza delivery. In recent weeks, the pizza deliveries have taken a more sinister turn. At least 10 judges have received anonymous pizza deliveries that were ordered using the name 'Daniel Anderl,' the late son of Judge Salas, according to the judge, who shared with Reuters information she received from other judges and the Marshals. In 2020, Daniel Anderl was killed by a disgruntled lawyer from a case heard by Salas. Posing as a delivery driver, the assailant shot Anderl, 20, when he answered the door at the judge's home. The attacker also wounded Salas' husband before killing himself. Reuters found more than 600 posts on social media and right-leaning message boards since February targeting family members of judges who ruled against the Trump administration. Other threats or menacing messages were made directly in calls and emails to the courts or the homes of judges and their relatives, according to court records.
Wall Street Journal
25-05-2025
- Politics
- Wall Street Journal
Judges Weigh Taking Control of Their Own Security Amid Threats
Amid rising tensions between the Trump administration and the judiciary, some federal judges are beginning to discuss the idea of managing their own armed security force. The notion came up in a series of closed-door meetings in early March, when a group of roughly 50 judges met in Washington for a semiannual meeting of the Judicial Conference, a policymaking body for the federal judiciary. There, members of a security committee spoke about threats emerging as President Trump stepped up criticism of those who rule against his policies.
Epoch Times
07-05-2025
- Politics
- Epoch Times
Trump-Aligned Group Files FOIA Lawsuit Against Chief Justice Roberts and Former Judge
A legal watchdog group founded by White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller has filed a lawsuit against Supreme Court Justice John Roberts and former District Judge Robert Conrad over their alleged refusal to honor Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. America First Legal Foundation filed the Chief Justice Roberts heads the Judicial Conference, and Judge Conrad is director of the Administrative Office. Both are being sued in their official capacity as leaders of these organizations. The Judicial Conference is a group of committees that meets twice a year to make policy for the federal court system; it is always headed by the sitting Chief Justice. The Administrative Office 'handles the nonjudicial, administrative business of the United States Courts such as maintaining statistics and managing Court budgets,' according to its website. America First said in court documents that Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) consulted with these two groups in an attempt to implicate Justices Thomas and Alito of ethics violations. Sen. Whitehouse signed onto a May 2024 Related Stories 6/7/2024 5/25/2024 In July 2024, Whitehouse asked then-Attorney General Merrick Garland to appoint a special counsel to investigate Justice Thomas for a string of other violations going back to 1991, including tax fraud and failing to disclose gifts like sports tickets and air travel. Previous inquiries had already cleared Thomas of any willful wrongdoing. America First asserts that since the Judicial Conference and the Administrative Office cooperated in these Congressional oversight maneuvers, which 'are the province of the executive branch,' they are executive agencies, and subject to FOIA transparency. America First submitted FOIA requests to the Judicial Conference and the Administrative Office in July 2024, asking for all records relating to Justices Thomas and Alito, and any communications with Sen. Sheldon, Rep. Johnson, or their staff since April 2023. The Administrative Office and an attorney for the Supreme Court both declined to honor the requests, saying that FOIA only applies to the executive branch of the government, not the judicial or legislative branches. Even if the Administrative Office were subject to FOIA, the requested records 'would not be releasable,' as those specific documents are exempt from FOIA requests, the Supreme Court's attorney said.
Yahoo
05-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump-aligned group sues Chief Justice John Roberts in effort to restrict power of the courts
A pro-Trump legal group founded by White House aide Stephen Miller is suing Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts — a long-shot move as Trump allies fight court rulings blocking key actions from the Oval Office. The lawsuit was filed by the America First Legal Foundation against Roberts in his capacity as the official head of the U.S. Judicial Conference and Robert J. Conrad, who serves as the director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. The complaint accuses both the U.S. Judicial Conference and the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts of performing certain regulatory actions that go beyond the scope of resolving cases or controversies, or administratively supporting those actions, which they argue are the "core functions" of the judiciary. It also argues that records held by the Roberts-led U.S. Judicial Conference should therefore be subject to the Freedom of Information Act requests, or FOIA requests, as a result. Trump's Executive Order On Voting Blocked By Federal Judges Amid Flurry Of Legal Setbacks AFL cited in its lawsuit recent actions taken by both the Judicial Conference and Administrative Office in 2023 to "accommodate" requests from Congress to investigate allegations of ethical improprieties by Justices Thomas and Alito, and subsequently to create or adopt an "ethics code" for justices on the high court. Read On The Fox News App "Under our constitutional tradition, accommodations with Congress are the province of the executive branch," AFL said, adding: "The Judicial Conference and the Administrative Office are therefore executive agencies," and must therefore be overseen by the president, not the courts. Gorsuch, Roberts Side With Left-leaning Supreme Court Justices In Immigration Ruling The U.S. Judicial Conference is the national policymaking body for the courts. It is overseen by the Supreme Court's chief justice, and tasked with making twice-yearly recommendations to Congress as needed. The Administrative Office for the U.S. Courts, meanwhile, operates under the guidance and supervision of the Judicial Conference. Its role is to provide administrative support to the federal courts on certain administrative issues and for day-to-day logistics, including setting budgets and organizing data, among other things. Plaintiffs for AFL, led by attorney Will Scolinos, argued in their lawsuit that the Judicial Conference's duties are "executive functions," and functions they allege must be supervised by executive officers "who are appointed and accountable to other executive officers." Further, AFL argued, "Courts definitively do not create agencies to exercise functions beyond resolving cases or controversies or administratively supporting those functions." In their 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. Scolinos argued that AFL's proposed framework "preserves the separation of powers but also keeps the courts out of politics." U.S. District Judge Trevor N. McFadden, a Trump appointee, has been assigned to preside over the article source: Trump-aligned group sues Chief Justice John Roberts in effort to restrict power of the courts
Fox News
05-05-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
Trump-aligned group sues Chief Justice John Roberts in effort to restrict power of the courts
A pro-Trump legal group founded by White House aide Stephen Miller is suing Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts — a long-shot move as Trump allies fight court rulings blocking key actions from the Oval Office. The lawsuit was filed by the America First Legal Foundation against Roberts in his capacity as the official head of the U.S. Judicial Conference and Robert J. Conrad, who serves as the director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. The complaint accuses both the U.S. Judicial Conference and the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts of performing certain regulatory actions that go beyond the scope of resolving cases or controversies, or administratively supporting those actions, which they argue are the "core functions" of the judiciary. It also argues that records held by the Roberts-led U.S. Judicial Conference should therefore be subject to the Freedom of Information Act requests, or FOIA requests, as a result. AFL cited in its lawsuit recent actions taken by both the Judicial Conference and Administrative Office in 2023 to "accommodate" requests from Congress to investigate allegations of ethical improprieties by Justices Thomas and Alito, and subsequently to create or adopt an "ethics code" for justices on the high court. "Under our constitutional tradition, accommodations with Congress are the province of the executive branch," AFL said, adding: "The Judicial Conference and the Administrative Office are therefore executive agencies," and must therefore be overseen by the president, not the courts. The U.S. Judicial Conference is the national policymaking body for the courts. It is overseen by the Supreme Court's chief justice, and tasked with making twice-yearly recommendations to Congress as needed. The Administrative Office for the U.S. Courts, meanwhile, operates under the guidance and supervision of the Judicial Conference. Its role is to provide administrative support to the federal courts on certain administrative issues and for day-to-day logistics, including setting budgets and organizing data, among other things. Plaintiffs for AFL, led by attorney Will Scolinos, argued in their lawsuit that the Judicial Conference's duties are "executive functions," and functions they allege must be supervised by executive officers "who are appointed and accountable to other executive officers." Further, AFL argued, "Courts definitively do not create agencies to exercise functions beyond resolving cases or controversies or administratively supporting those functions." In their 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. Scolinos argued that AFL's proposed framework "preserves the separation of powers but also keeps the courts out of politics." U.S. District Judge Trevor N. McFadden, a Trump appointee, has been assigned to preside over the case.
