Lying, Amorous Federal Judge Likely Committed a Federal Felony

News broke earlier this week that a sitting federal judge in the Southeastern United States committed a host of outrageous acts, for which the judge received the ridiculously light punishment of a private reprimand. (Bloomberg Law reports that the judge is Eleanor Ross who sits on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. Judge Ross has not yet commented.).

But after reviewing the details of confirmed misconduct, it becomes even more evident that a private reprimand (where the judge’s name isn’t even publicly released) is not an appropriate punishment considering that this federal judge likely committed a federal felony.

The details of the misconduct are salacious. The judge had an extramarital affair and engaged in repeated loud sexual encounters with a high-ranking police official in the judge’s chambers (courthouse office) within earshot of the judge’s employees. The investigative report and its findings go into (unfortunately necessary) graphic detail.

But here’s where the judge likely committed a crime: When confronted with the allegations, she lied—even going so far as to “specifically [deny] each” factual allegation.

After receiving a referral for potential misconduct, Eleventh Circuit Chief Judge Bill Pryor, following relevant statutory and Judicial-Conduct Rules, notified the judge of the allegations and “requested that the judge respond to the factual allegations.”

That same day, the judge responded to Chief Judge Pryor by characterizing “the allegations as ‘outrageous’ and ‘baseless’ and specifically [denying] each one.” Moreover, the judge sought to undermine the credibility of the employee who first alerted others to her misconduct by intimating that the employee “might have made the allegations as a means of retaliating against” the judge for criticizing the employee’s performance.

Not content with these denials, the judge sent two other emails that same day to her own court’s chief judge denying the allegations and impugning the character of the employee.

And the next day, the judge emailed Chief Judge Pryor to further deny the charges and impugn the character and conduct of the employee.

After receiving the judge’s denial, Chief Judge Pryor empaneled a special committee to investigate the allegations. And the special committee retained “experienced counsel in conducting its investigation.”

According to the Special Committee’s written report, almost two weeks after first denying the salacious allegations, “the Subject Judge, through an attorney, submitted to Chief Judge Pryor a supplemental response … [where] the Subject Judge: (1) admitted to having had an extramarital affair with the Officer; [and] (2) admitted that, in the course of the affair, the judge had sexual intercourse in the judge’s office.”

The special committee appointed by Chief Judge Pryor found that the judge committed judicial misconduct by, among other actions, “making false statements to Chief Judge Pryor and to the Chief District Judge that were material to the investigation of misconduct allegations and to the administration of the district court.”

Why does that matter?

It matters because 18 U.S.C. § 1001 makes it a felony offense for anyone “in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, [to] knowingly and willfully … make[] any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation.”

The special committee investigating the judge made clear that “the judge’s false statements to Chief Judge Pryor and to the Chief District Judge constituted attempts to prevent the chief judge from learning of the Subject Judge’s misconduct.”

And they were clearly material because, as the committee explained, by the time the judge confessed, “the judiciary had devoted considerable time and resources to investigating the allegations at issue … Most of these efforts would have been rendered unnecessary had the Subject Judge been honest from the beginning. The Subject Judge’s falsity undoubtedly altered the course of the proceedings.”

The committee concluded that “there is no excuse for the egregious falsities the Subject Judge submitted to fellow judges.”

Article III of the Constitution provides that federal judges “shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour.”

And Article II of the Constitution allows for “all civil Officers of the United States”—including federal judges—to “be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

While “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” remains undefined in the Constitution itself, committing a federal felony likely suffices. (And there’s a strong case to be made that this judge’s other conduct independently qualifies as well).

If this federal judge doesn’t do the right thing by resigning from office, Congress must act.

The House of Representatives should impeach the judge. The Senate should hold a trial and convict the judge (given the overwhelming evidence). And the judge should be removed from office to face the consequences of her actions. The American people—and justice itself—demands no less.