A prominent conservative legal advocate is raising serious concerns about the role of the federal judiciary in disputes surrounding President Donald Trump’s second-term agenda. Mike Davis, a former clerk to Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch and founder of the Article III Project, argues that Chief Justice John Roberts has allowed lower courts to interfere with executive authority through what he calls “judicial sabotage.”
Davis outlined his criticisms during an interview on Joe Piscopo’s podcast, where he discussed a new lawsuit filed against Roberts in his administrative capacity as head of the U.S. Judicial Conference. The complaint, which also names Robert J. Conrad — director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts — alleges that both bodies have engaged in regulatory activities that exceed the judiciary’s constitutional boundaries.
The dispute represents a growing conflict over how much influence the judicial branch should exert in shaping or restraining executive policy, especially during periods of heightened political tension.
The Lawsuit at the Center of the Debate
The newly filed lawsuit takes aim at the U.S. Judicial Conference, the body responsible for setting administrative policies for the federal courts. The plaintiffs claim that the Conference and the Administrative Office have stepped beyond their designated administrative roles and ventured into regulatory decision-making that affects executive-branch operations.
According to the complaint, these bodies may have adopted policies that, indirectly or directly, influenced how lower courts handled lawsuits against the Trump administration. The plaintiffs argue that such actions stray from the judiciary’s core purpose: adjudicating cases and ensuring the courts operate effectively.
One of the lawsuit’s key assertions is that, because the Judicial Conference is allegedly engaging in regulatory policy-making, its records should be made available under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Historically, FOIA does not apply to federal courts. This case challenges that long-standing line, alleging that if an agency performs non-judicial roles, its records may lose their exemption.
Davis: Roberts Has Failed to Rein in Lower Courts
During his conversation with Piscopo, Davis expressed a mixture of respect and frustration toward Chief Justice Roberts. While acknowledging his admiration for Roberts as a jurist, Davis argued that the Chief Justice has not fulfilled his responsibility to maintain discipline among lower federal courts.
Davis accused those courts of issuing a historically high number of nationwide injunctions impacting Trump administration policies — from immigration rules to national security directives. He argued that many of these rulings overstepped judicial boundaries and undermined presidential authority under Article II of the Constitution.
“I actually like the Chief Justice,” Davis said. “But I would say this: you have failed to do your job when you have allowed activist judges to sabotage the president’s constitutional powers. This is an assault on American voters.”
According to Davis, federal judges “with lifetime appointments and no political accountability” have interfered with policy decisions that should fall firmly within executive control. This, he said, is “not judicial review — it is judicial sabotage.”
Nationwide Injunctions and the Growing Separation-of-Powers Conflict
Nationwide injunctions — rulings that halt federal policies across the entire country — have become a particularly contentious issue. Legal scholars and public officials across the political spectrum have debated whether a single district judge should have the authority to block nationwide policies crafted by the executive branch.
Supporters of nationwide injunctions argue that they provide necessary protections when a policy is believed to be unconstitutional or harmful. Opponents call them judicial overreach and say they incentivize strategic forum shopping, where litigants file cases in courts they expect to be sympathetic.
Davis claims that such injunctions were used disproportionately during Trump’s presidency and continue to pose challenges for his second-term priorities. He argues that the judiciary has inserted itself into policy decisions intended for elected leaders — frustrating attempts to implement immigration changes, regulatory reforms, and national security directives.
What the Article III Project Is Preparing to Do
Davis warned that his organization, the Article III Project, plans to respond aggressively to judges who, in his view, cross the line from adjudicating cases to making political decisions.
“When judges take off their robes and step into the political arena, they should expect political pushback,” Davis said. He argued that judges who issue sweeping injunctions without strong constitutional justification should not expect “to act without scrutiny.”
The Article III Project has historically focused on supporting conservative judicial nominees and monitoring federal courts for perceived activist rulings. Davis’s comments suggest the organization may become more directly involved in public campaigns criticizing judicial decisions that impact the administration.
Roberts’s Difficult Position
Chief Justice Roberts has long attempted to project an image of institutional neutrality. He has warned judges and lawmakers alike against politicizing the courts and has insisted the judiciary must remain separate from partisan disputes.
However, the modern legal landscape has placed him in difficult territory. A growing number of cases threaten to pull the Supreme Court into ongoing political battles. Roberts, at times, has sided with conservative blocs and, at other times, with liberal justices — decisions that have earned criticism from all sides.
Davis’s accusation of “judicial sabotage” places Roberts at the center of yet another political firestorm. Critics on the left argue that Roberts has been too permissive with conservative causes, while conservative activists now claim he has not intervened enough to prevent perceived judicial overreach by lower courts.
The Administrative Side of the Judiciary Under Scrutiny
While most Americans know the Supreme Court as the nation’s highest judicial authority, fewer are aware that the Chief Justice also oversees administrative operations across the federal judiciary. This includes:
- Setting policies for judicial conduct
- Establishing guidelines for courtroom operations
- Managing budgets and staffing
- Overseeing the Judicial Conference
The lawsuit filed against Roberts specifically targets this administrative function. Critics argue that recent actions by the Judicial Conference exceed administrative authority and encroach into regulatory territory that could guide or influence judicial rulings.
If the lawsuit succeeds, it could fundamentally reshape the structure and oversight mechanisms of the federal judiciary.
A Larger Debate About Judicial Power
The conflict comes during a period of heightened national debate over how much authority courts should wield. Key questions include:
- Should judges limit themselves strictly to reviewing cases?
- When, if ever, is it appropriate for courts to block executive policies nationwide?
- Does the judiciary have adequate checks to prevent internal overreach?
- Should administrative actions by courts be subject to FOIA or other transparency laws?
Legal experts are divided. Some believe that courts must have broad discretion to protect constitutional rights and halt potentially harmful policies. Others argue that when courts repeatedly block actions taken by duly elected presidents, they risk overshadowing democratic processes.
What Comes Next
The lawsuit against Roberts could take months or years to fully unfold. Depending on how the courts respond, it could either reaffirm the judiciary’s current structure or open the door to new transparency requirements and restrictions on judicial authority.
Meanwhile, Davis and the Article III Project appear poised to increase public pressure on judges they believe have acted inappropriately.
As the Trump administration continues to face legal challenges to its second-term agenda, battles over judicial power are expected to intensify. Whether the courts, Congress, or the executive branch ultimately assert dominance in these disputes remains an open question — one that may shape the direction of the federal government for years to come.