Legal Expert Accuses Justice Roberts Of ‘Judicial Sabotage’ Against Trump
The head of a legal watchdog organization who clerked for one of President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court appointments has accused Chief Justice John Roberts of malfeasance in allowing lower courts to commit “judicial sabotage” against President Donald Trump’s second-term agenda.
In an interview with actor and comedian Joe Piscopo for the latter’s podcast, Mike Davis, founder of the Article III Project, referenced a recently filed lawsuit against Roberts targeting him in his role as head of the U.S. Judicial Conference, as well as Robert J. Conrad, director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.
The complaint alleges that both the Judicial Conference and the Administrative Office have engaged in regulatory actions that exceed their constitutional mandate, arguing such actions fall outside the judiciary’s core responsibilities of adjudicating cases and providing administrative support.
The lawsuit also contends that records maintained by the U.S. Judicial Conference, under Roberts’ leadership, should be subject to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests as a consequence of the alleged regulatory actions.
In his interview with Piscopo, Davis accused Roberts of refusing to do more to rein in lower federal courts that have imposed a record number of nationwide injunctions against the Trump administration despite several instances where he said the president’s Article II authorities were being trampled.
“I actually like the Chief Justice. I clerked for Justice [Neil] Gorsuch, and I like him personally, John Roberts, but I would say this to the Chief Justice: you have failed to do your job as the Chief Justice of the United States when you have allowed these radical activist judges to sabotage the president’s Article II powers,” Davis said.
“This is an assault on American voters. This is a repudiation of American voters by lifetime appointment, paycheck-protected federal judges who have no—who have no reason to be in this political lane. This is not judicial review. This is judicial sabotage,” he added.
“And I say this to these judges: when you take off your judicial robes, climb into the political arena, and throw political punches, expect powerful political counterpunches from the Article III Project because this is unacceptable. This is dangerous to our republic when these activist judges become political actors. And is the president supposed to report to 670 district court judges around the country for everything he does?” Davis said.
“That’s exactly right. It’s insane. And now this is a lawsuit that was—do you work, are you working with [White House Deputy Chief of Staff] Stephen Miller on this, if I may ask?” Piscopo said in response, referencing the lawsuit against Roberts, which was filed by America First Legal, a legal organization founded by Miller.
“A pro-Trump legal group founded by White House aide Stephen Miller is suing Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts…
The lawsuit was filed by America First Legal.” pic.twitter.com/33QjS9j5xO
— America First Legal (@America1stLegal) May 6, 2025
“Well, I have to be careful what I say on particular lawsuits on who I’m working with,” Davis responded.
“The Article III Project is an independent outside organization. We are very much aligned with President Trump, but we are very actively going to defend the President of the United States, Donald Trump, like we did before the election when we ferociously defended him against the unprecedented Republican lawfare,” he continued.
“We turned lemons into lemonade. Everyone thought Trump was toast after the Mar-a-Lago raid, and now he’s back in the White House, and we’re going to continue to support President Trump every step of the way, every day for the next four years to make sure he succeeds,” Davis added.
The America First Legal lawsuit comes as Trump and several of his top officials have criticized what they say are “activist” federal court rulings, most of them from judges appointed by Democratic presidents.
Trump has endured an unprecedented number of nationwide injunctions, which were fairly rare but were also widely imposed against him during his first term.
OMG Mitch McConnell's Replacement Revealed After Senate Vote - President Donald Trump Notified
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The top three Republican candidates vying to replace longtime U.S. Sen. Mitch McConnell took the stage Monday night at the Henry Clay event center in downtown Louisville for the first Republican primary debate. McConnell, a Republican who has represented Kentucky in the Senate since 1985, announced earlier this year that he would not seek reelection in 2026 after more than 40 years in office, creating the first open Senate seat in the state in years.
Rep. Andy Barr, former Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron, and businessman Nate Morris are competing in the Republican primary, which is among this year’s most competitive races. All three candidates expressed strong support for President Donald Trump, hoping to secure his endorsement in a state that Trump carried overwhelmingly in the past three presidential elections.
The debate provided voters an opportunity to hear the candidates discuss their positions on key issues and outline their priorities as the Republican primary campaign intensifies. At one point, the candidates were asked about Trump’s military actions against Iran and at what point Congress should become involved.
Barr, who voted against a recent War Powers Act resolution seeking to limit the president, stated that the president has the legal authority as commander in chief to defend the country, while Congress has the power to declare war but not to prevent the president from advancing national security. He argued that the resolution would have sent a dangerous signal and been a gift to adversaries, adding that the objectives are being achieved.
Cameron took a similar stance, contrasting Trump’s decisive action with what he described as the red lines and disastrous evacuation from Afghanistan under previous administrations. He expressed gratitude for Trump’s leadership on Iran and referenced actions against Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, calling Trump on the right track for national security.
Morris said it was simple: he trusts President Trump because of the results he has delivered for the American people and stands by him 100 percent. He described Trump’s approach as surgical and tactical in dealing with foreign governments and emphasized the need for a senator willing to vote with the president and have his back on foreign policy.
The candidates were also asked about Trump’s aggressive enforcement of immigration laws. Cameron said people in neighborhoods want to sleep soundly in their homes and highlighted the importance of deporting violent criminals. He called for withholding federal funding from sanctuary states and cities.
Morris advocated for a full moratorium on new immigration until every illegal immigrant who entered under the previous administration is deported, stating that the country was invaded and all must go back, with no taxpayer money given to illegals.
Barr said he has tripled ICE funding and supported the toughest border security in history because the American people must be protected first.
The debate highlighted the candidates’ alignment with Trump on both foreign policy and immigration, key issues in a state where Trump has dominated recent presidential elections. McConnell’s retirement has opened the race, drawing significant interest as Republicans seek to maintain their hold on the seat. The primary is expected to be competitive, with the winner likely to face a Democrat in the general election in November.
Political observers note that the candidates’ unanimous support for Trump’s positions reflects the political reality in Kentucky, where Trump has carried the state by wide margins. The debate comes as the Republican primary campaign ramps up, with voters evaluating the contenders on their ability to carry forward conservative priorities.
The open seat has drawn national attention, as it represents one of the few truly competitive opportunities in the Senate map for 2026. All three candidates positioned themselves as strong conservatives who would back Trump’s agenda if elected. The debate was the first of what is expected to be several forums before the primary.
The results of the Kentucky primary could have implications for the balance of power in the Senate. Republicans currently hold the majority, and maintaining or expanding that edge remains a central goal heading into the midterms. The candidates’ emphasis on national security and border enforcement mirrors broader Republican messaging nationwide.
Further debates and campaign events are anticipated in the coming months as the primary season progresses. The winner of the Republican primary will be heavily favored in the general election given the state’s political leanings, making the primary the most critical contest for the seat.
TRUMP COMPLETELY UNHINGED! — Colbert Exposes Massive "Secret" On Live Television
TRUMP IN TOTAL MELTDOWN? COLBERT’S “SECRET REVEAL” SPARKS ONLINE FIRESTORM
A wave of online buzz erupted after a sensational headline claimed that former U.S. President Donald Trump was “in total meltdown” following comments made by late-night host Stephen Colbert during a recent live broadcast.
While the wording has been widely shared across social media, the actual context behind the claim appears far more nuanced than the explosive phrasing suggests.
What Sparked the Controversy?
During a recent episode of The Late Show, Colbert delivered a segment that referenced ongoing political tensions in the U.S., along with humorous commentary about the current election climate and media reactions to Trump-related headlines.
Although no verified “secret document” or major revelation was officially disclosed on-air, some clips circulating online selectively edited Colbert’s monologue, leading viewers to interpret his jokes as a “bombshell disclosure.”
Social Media Amplification
Within hours, fragmented clips and exaggerated captions began spreading across platforms, with posts claiming that Colbert had exposed “hidden truths” and that Trump had reacted strongly behind the scenes.
However, fact-checkers and mainstream media outlets have not confirmed any incident involving a “meltdown” or private response from Trump tied to Colbert’s segment.
The Reality Behind Viral Headlines
This situation highlights a common pattern in modern media consumption: emotionally charged headlines often outpace verified information. In this case, both Trump’s reaction and the idea of a “secret revelation” appear to stem more from online interpretation than documented fact.
Experts in media studies note that late-night comedy shows frequently blend satire, political commentary, and exaggeration—making clipped segments especially vulnerable to misinterpretation when shared out of context.
Conclusion
Despite the dramatic framing circulating online, there is currently no confirmed evidence of a political crisis or hidden revelation connected to Colbert’s broadcast. Instead, the story reflects how quickly entertainment content can evolve into viral political narratives in the digital age.
As always, audiences are encouraged to verify sources before accepting sensational claims at face value.
Outrage Intensifies Against Law Enforcement in Nancy Guthrie Case After Suspension Details Emerge
Pima County Sheriff Chris Nanos has headed the investigation into Nancy Guthrie's disappearance from her Arizona home since day one
Backlash has been steadily building against the lead investigator in the case of Nancy Guthrie's disappearance on February 1, with Pima County Sheriff Chris Nanos coming under fire for past disciplinary issues as the investigation approaches its 12th week.
The sheriff's history at the El Paso Police Department in Texas has drawn criticism as he resigned from his position in 1982 in order to avoid disciplinary action. He addressed the allegations that he misrepresented himself when applying for a job at the Pima County Police Department in the '80s, after leaving his job in Texas.
Chris' lawyer responded to the probe into his past with a 22-page document that explained his conduct. "Sheriff Nanos resigned from the El Paso Police Department in 1982. At the time of his resignation, he held the rank of corporal," the document read.
© Getty Images
Sheriff Chris Nanos has come under fire in recent weeks
"His resignation came in the wake of a dispute with a supervisor over the towing of vehicles. The supervisor wanted to impose a three-day suspension for insubordination. Sheriff Nanos appealed that recommended discipline to the Chief, who found in favor of the supervisor."
"Rather than accept a three-day suspension, Sheriff Nanos offered to resign in lieu of discipline. The Chief accepted his offer, and Sheriff Nanos resigned," he continued. The document added that he had not lied about his employment history, and wrote on his resume that he left the job in 1982, despite the Pima County Sheriff's Department website stating that he left in 1984.
Chris' lawyer also acknowledged the disciplinary actions he was subject to at El Paso, including "counselling, reprimands and suspensions". The letter then spoke on the sheriff's previous statement under oath that he had never been suspended as a result of disciplinary action.
© Getty Images
The sheriff has lead the Nancy Guthrie investigation since day one
"It is 100% correct that Sheriff Nanos was never suspended during his four decades of decorated and faithful service with the Pima County Sheriff's Department," his lawyer wrote to the Pima County Board of Supervisors.
"However, Sheriff Nanos was suspended more than forty years ago while employed by [the] El Paso Police Department. In the context of his live deposition, Sheriff Nanos did not understand the question related to discipline with a different agency not governed by the Arizona Peace Officers' Bill of Rights."
Social media users quickly shared their distaste for the sheriff after his past in El Paso came to light. "Everyone wants him gone," wrote one X user, while another added that "people are angry". A third chimed in that Chris had "botched this [case] from the start," while a fourth added: "My gut is telling me it was totally mishandled."
© Getty Images
Chris faced backlash from social media users
Chris did garner support from some social media users, with one writing: "Wasn't this decades ago? [In my opinion] he is working hard to find Nancy Guthrie," while another added that the focus on his past was "fueling a dishonest narrative" about Chris' competency.
© WireImage
Nancy went missing from her Arizona home in February
The Pima County Sheriff's Department has worked closely with the FBI since Nancy went missing in February. While several suspects have been questioned regarding her disappearance, no arrests have been made, and DNA evidence is still being examined by the authorities.
Nancy, the 84-year-old mother of Today show star Savannah Guthrie, was believed to have been taken by force from her home in Tucson, Arizona, after blood was found on the doorstep, and her personal effects were found inside the house.
