Latest news with #U.S.JudicialConference
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.
Reuters
05-05-2025
- Science
- Reuters
US judicial panel advances proposal to regulate AI-generated evidence
May 2 (Reuters) - A federal judicial panel advanced a proposal on Friday to regulate the introduction of artificial intelligence-generated evidence at trial, with judges expressing a need to swiftly get feedback from the public and lawyers on the draft rule to get ahead of a rapidly evolving technology. The U.S. Judicial Conference's Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules in Washington, D.C., voted 8-1 in favor of seeking public comment on a draft rule designed to ensure evidence produced by generative AI technology meets the same reliability standards as evidence from a human expert witness. The proposed rule is designed to address concerns about the reliability of the processes used by computer technologies to make predictions or draw inferences from existing data, akin to issues courts have long addressed concerning the reliability of expert witnesses' testimony. The reliability of testimony of expert witnesses who rely on such technology is already subject to scrutiny under the Federal Rules of Evidence. But the rules do not currently cover what would happen if a non-expert witness used an AI program to generate evidence without any knowledge of its reliability. Under the proposal, AI and other machine-generated evidence offered at trial without an accompanying expert witness would be subjected to the same reliability standards as expert witnesses, who are governed by Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. The rule would exempt "basic scientific instruments." The proposal now goes to the Judicial Conference's Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure, the top judicial rulemaking body, which will vote at its June meeting on whether to publish the proposal for public comment. Some judges expressed uncertainty about whether such a rule should ultimately be adopted, and a representative for the U.S. Department of Justice, Elizabeth Shapiro, was the lone vote against it, citing concerns about how it would be deployed. But committee members expressed a general view that they needed to at least get a draft rule out for public comment in order to gather information and avoid having the normally years-long rulemaking process prevent the judiciary from keeping up with the evolving technological landscape. U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman, a Manhattan-based judge who chairs the panel, said he was unsure whether he would ultimately back finalizing the rule but was "genuinely interested in what the world has to say about this thing." "I think sometimes when you put something out for notice-and-comment there's kind of an assumption that it's a train that's moving forward to final approval," Furman said. "Here I think there are a lot of questions that we need to work through." The proposal comes amid broader efforts by federal and state courts nationally to address the rise of generative AI, including programs such as OpenAI's ChatGPT that are capable of learning patterns from large datasets and then generating text, images and videos. Chief U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Roberts in his end-of-the-year annual report in December 2023 cited the potential benefits of AI for litigants and judges while saying the judiciary would need to consider its proper uses in litigation. US judicial panel wrestles with how to police AI-generated evidence
Associated Press
20-03-2025
- Politics
- Associated Press
14 Wall Street Journal Reporters Caught Lying to Cover Up Roberts & Boasberg's Judicial Corruption
The Wall Street Journal deliberately misled the public to cover up Chief Justice John Roberts' illegal use of executive power and Judge James Boasberg's fabrication of 15 unlawful 'minute' orders - including 9 rushed, instant orders over the weekend. ST. JOHNS, FL / ACCESS Newswire / March 20, 2025 / The Wall Street Journal continues to lie to suppress the truth about the weaponization of the judiciary against President Donald J. Trump, this time by falsely portraying Chief Justice John Roberts as a defender of judicial independence while ignoring his leadership role in coordinating judicial misconduct. Manuel P. Asensio, Chairman of St. Johns GOP, said, 'I used the expression 'false and untrue' instead of lie as the nation's Pioneer of Activist Short Selling on Wall Street, but I have never seen a bigger lie than that told by The Wall Street Journal in their latest anti-Trump propaganda piece, Chief Justice Roberts Criticizes Trump's Call to Impeach Judges.' Asensio has pioneered information arbitrage in financial and political investigations, ensuring the truth reaches the public despite media suppression. The WSJ deliberately lied the public to shield Roberts from accountability while discrediting President Trump. Rather than addressing the systemic judicial misconduct that Trump has exposed, the WSJ lied to falsely reduces the issue to a procedural dispute over legal rulings. The idea that this is about legal rulings is a lie. The truth is that this is a power struggle between two branches of government, with Roberts hiding behind his judicial role while wielding unchecked executive power at the U.S. Judicial Conference. The real issue is not Trump's criticism of the courts but Roberts' ability to fabricate judicial policies, protect corrupt judges, and manufacture rulings designed to entrap Trump in perpetual legal warfare. What the Wall Street Journal Lied About: Judge James Boasberg's Record of Judicial Misconduct Boasberg was handpicked by Roberts for the FISA Court, where he upheld fraudulent surveillance warrants used against Trump's campaign. Boasberg works as an executive policy maker with Roberts at the US Judicial Conference. Boasberg was the subject of a Judicial Conduct Complaint in an election-related case, which was summarily dismissed by his subordinates without any real review. Boasberg also presided over cases tied to the Mueller probe, where he protected Democrat-aligned entities and helped block full transparency into the FBI and DOJ's handling of the Russia collusion investigations. Chief Justice Roberts' Role in the Judicial War Against Trump Roberts controls judicial policymaking at the U.S. Judicial Conference, where he enforces fabricated legal doctrines that ensure anti-Trump rulings at every level of the judiciary. By declaring that Trump should simply appeal Boasberg's barrage weekend bombing, Roberts is attempting to eliminate all avenues of judicial accountability while keeping Trump trapped in a process that he and his judicial allies control. Roberts has shielded judges like Boasberg, who have engaged in misconduct that directly impacted Trump's presidency, campaign, and legal defense. Despite Having Evidence, The Wall Street Journal's 14 Reporters Chose to Lie Despite being provided with evidence directly by our team, including documented proof of Boasberg's misconduct, a team of 14 WSJ reporters refused to acknowledge the facts and instead published a pack of lies in an article deliberately designed to mislead the public and protect Roberts. Instead of investigating or reporting on the documented corruption within the U.S. Judicial Conference, they ignored clear evidence and framed Trump's entire fight as nothing more than an attack on judicial independence-a narrative crafted to deceive the public while protecting the entrenched power structure. Trump Must Challenge Roberts' Abuse of Power at the U.S. Judicial Conference President Trump is being misled by the legal establishment into believing that his only recourse is to appeal case-by-case. This is a trap. The courts have already been stacked with judges who follow Roberts' judicial policies rather than neutral constitutional principles. Yesterday, we published our letter to White House Chief of Staff showing that we have done the work and have the information Trump needs to deal with Chief Justice John Roberts for his role in weaponizing the judiciary against him. His unchecked executive authority at the U.S. Judicial Conference must be exposed and dismantled. The Wall Street Journal had access to this information and refused to report on it. Their reporters were provided with the evidence, yet they chose to ignore it in favor of protecting Roberts and Boasberg. We Demand Accountability The WSJ article appeared a day after we published our first letter to Trump's Chief of Staff. Yesterday we published on a second letter to the White House Chief of Staff dealing with the WSJ's and Roberts's conduct. A copy is directly available at St. Johns GOP's website . We are calling on President Trump to stop treating these cases as legitimate legal disputes and instead address the true source of judicial corruption-Roberts use of executive power at the U.S. Judicial Conference. For media inquiries, interviews, or access to our full report, please contact: St. Johns Republican Presidential Executive Committee 5122 A1A South St. Augustine, Florida 32080 (561) 946-1000 [email protected] SOURCE: St. Johns Republican Presidential Executive Committee press release
Reuters
13-03-2025
- Politics
- Reuters
US federal judiciary undertakes review of its own DEI programs
March 12 (Reuters) - The federal judiciary is undertaking a review of its diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, a process it kicked off quietly in the months before Republican President Donald Trump returned to the White House with a vow to eliminate DEI in the federal government and the private sector. U.S. Circuit Judge Jeffrey Sutton, the chair of the U.S. Judicial Conference's executive committee, told reporters following a meeting of the judiciary's top policymaking body on Tuesday that a working group was in the midst of undertaking a review of the court system's own DEI initiatives. "Obviously, the judiciary wants to make sure we're following the law," said Sutton, an appointee of Republican President George W. Bush who sits on the Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The existence of the working group was disclosed in a single line of a report released in December, opens new tab describing what was discussed during the Judicial Conference's prior meeting that September, before the presidential election. At that meeting, the Judicial Conference's executive committee agreed to appoint a working group to review the results of a survey the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts conducted in July of DEI programs, the report said. Exactly what the survey found, or who is on the working group, has never been disclosed, and a spokesperson for the Administrative Office, the judiciary's administrative arm, declined on Wednesday to provide further information. The working group's efforts are separate from Trump's own push through executive orders and other administration actions to ban what he calls "egregious and discriminatory" DEI programs at federal agencies and businesses. Supporters of such programs say they are generally designed to promote the fair treatment and full participation of groups that historically have been underrepresented or faced discrimination because of their race, gender or gender identity. The judiciary is an independent branch of government, and Trump has no authority over its DEI policies. But judicial policymakers are nonetheless reviewing their own programs to see if they are lawful, according to Sutton. He said the judiciary's DEI working group grew out of the U.S. Supreme Court's 2023 decision striking down race-conscious admissions programs at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina. Chief Justice John Roberts, who presides over the Judicial Conference, in that decision wrote that "eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it." While the ruling only concerned colleges, conservative activists have cited it when challenging other government and private sector programs designed to bolster diversity. Sutton said that given the Supreme Court's holding, the judiciary wanted "to take an inventory to make sure that our programs are complying with the ruling." The Judicial Conference took no action on Tuesday concerning the working group's efforts, which are ongoing, he said. He provided no further details. What is DEI, a practice Trump is trying to dismantle? US Supreme Court rejects affirmative action in university admissions
