A federal judge in Georgia is facing an impeachment resolution after a judicial investigation found that she had an extramarital affair inside her chambers, attended a partisan political event, and misled investigators. U.S. District Judge Eleanor Ross received only a “private reprimand” from a special committee of the 11th Circuit. Republican Reps. Clay Fuller and Andrew Clyde are now pushing to remove the lifetime-appointed judge from the federal bench. The House Judiciary Committee will decide whether the resolution moves forward to impeachment hearings.
The controversy arose from an anonymous complaint reportedly submitted by one of Ross’ law clerks. A special committee appointed by the chief judge of the 11th Circuit investigated the complaint and examined Ross’ response to the allegations. The investigation reportedly concluded that Ross engaged in sexual activity with an Atlanta police officer inside her judicial chambers and later used deceptive tactics when questioned about the matter.
The committee also examined Ross’ attendance at a political fundraising event and concerns about whether her undisclosed relationship created conflicts in cases involving the Atlanta Police Department. Despite those findings, the committee handled the matter through a reprimand that was initially kept from the public. Fuller and Clyde filed their impeachment resolution in July, arguing that the conduct was serious enough to warrant congressional action. Federal judges hold lifetime appointments and can be removed only through impeachment by the House and conviction in the Senate.
Georgia Public Broadcasting spoke with Georgia State University law professor Clark Cunningham about the findings and the impeachment effort. Cunningham, who holds the university’s W. Lee Burge Chair in Law and Ethics, said Ross’ alleged deception was more serious than the salacious details surrounding the affair. He said misleading the chief judge and attempting to place blame on the law clerk who submitted the complaint could qualify as official misconduct and “grounds for impeachment.”
Cunningham explained that the sexual relationship still raised substantial ethical problems because Ross allegedly used the security and privacy of her federal chambers to conduct the affair. He also pointed to the potential conflict created by her relationship with a high-ranking Atlanta police officer. Parties appearing before Ross in cases involving the police department would have had no knowledge of that relationship when deciding whether to request her recusal.
The law professor also sharply criticized the 11th Circuit committee’s decision to issue a private reprimand. He argued that the committee treated the situation as a question of how Ross should be punished rather than asking, “How should the public be protected?” The secrecy surrounding the reprimand kept the findings away from Congress and from parties with cases before Ross until the matter became public through media reporting. Cunningham said the federal system allows judges to sit in judgment of their colleagues rather than assigning misconduct investigations to an independent agency.
Ross’ conduct has already affected at least one federal case. Cunningham said the government successfully sought her recusal in a case involving Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger because Ross had attended a political fundraiser for the Fulton County district attorney. That connection was considered sufficiently close to the issues in the case to raise questions about her impartiality. Cunningham cautioned that parties in unrelated cases may have greater difficulty forcing Ross to step aside because federal recusal rules require a connection to the particular dispute.
"*" indicates required fields
Impeaching a federal judge remains an unusual step, although judges have accounted for most of the officials subjected to the process. Cunningham said the House has approved roughly 22 sets of impeachment articles during American history, with approximately 15 involving federal judges. Only a smaller group of judges has ultimately been convicted and removed by the Senate. A criminal conviction is not required because impeachment can also address official misconduct, abuse of authority, and behavior showing that an official is unfit to continue exercising public power.
Cunningham rejected the idea that Ross should remain on the bench simply because the allegations may not result in a criminal prosecution. He described her behavior as “grave misconduct” and said the investigation showed that she was “untrustworthy and lacks integrity.” GPB contacted the 11th Circuit seeking a response from Ross but had not received one when its report was published. The next decision rests with the House Judiciary Committee, which can decline to act or begin formal proceedings against Ross.
Watch GOP Senators comment on holding rogue judges accountable: