When the Framers penned Article III, they designed a judiciary insulated from the fleeting whims of majoritarian factions, granting federal judges life tenure to protect their decisional independence “during good Behaviour.” They did not, however, intend to create a separate caste of unaccountable magistrates operating entirely above the moral and legal constraints of the citizens they judge.
Read more AI, Papal Encyclicals, and Eternal Hubris: Why Magnifica Humanitas Misses the Mark
Yet, if we examine the recent internal disposition of by the Judicial Council of the Eleventh Circuit and its subsequent affirmation by the Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability ), it is clear that our jurists have transformed constitutional insulation into a guild privilege.
The facts substantiated by the special committee’s investigation read less like the record of an honorable court and more like a sordid farce. Over a two-year period, a federal district judge engaged in an extramarital affair with a high-ranking police commander from her jurisdiction, culminating in repeated loud acts of sexual intercourse within her judicial chambers, during court hours, and within earshot of her horrified law clerks. Beyond the obvious degradation of the dignity of her office, this relationship created an unmitigated conflict-of-interest risk within a district where that exact police department routinely litigated civil and criminal cases. Bloomberg reported that the judge is Judge Eleanor Ross of the Northern District of Georgia.
Far more alarmingly, when first confronted with these reports by her chief judge, Judge Ross explicitly and repeatedly made materially false statements to obstruct the inquiry. She denied the intercourse, which had to be proved by testing her office couch for bodily fluids, and claimed that her law clerk had fabricated the allegations out of personal malice.
In any other professional setting across the length and breadth of this continent, such conduct would invite immediate ruin. In the private sector, conducting an office rendezvous within earshot of subordinates and lying to executives is a textbook termination for cause. In the United States military, the combination of dereliction of duty, conduct unbecoming an officer, and making false official statements would eventuate in a court-martial, loss of rank, separation, and potential confinement.
Yet, what was the stern correction meted out by the self-policing guild of the federal bench? A private reprimand, an indefinite ban from voluntary administrative assignments, and a settlement requiring the judge to write “letters of apology” to her former clerks.
A handful of vaguely worded notes will hardly provide “solace” to those whose professional lives were upended by their superior’s reckless vulgarity. By opting for an internal slap on the wrist, the judicial council explicitly refused to try to set in motion the constitutional machinery of removal. They chose to attempt to insulate a disgraced colleague from a congressional inquiry, signaling to the American people that the judiciary’s institutional reflex is self-preservation and damage control rather than genuine accountability.
Read more Justice Department Sues Four States for Denying Undercover License Plates for Federal Agents
This failure is the predictable consequence of the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980. By enacting this statutory compromise, Congress essentially outsourced its own constitutional prerogative. The legislature permitted the judiciary to police its own behavioral lapses. Yet in our constitutional order, the relation between “bad behavior” and an impeachable “high crime or misdemeanor” is not for the judges to define. It belongs exclusively to the House of Representatives and the Senate.
We are told by the defenders of this administrative firewall that lowering the bar for removal risks weaponizing behavioral investigations, creating a slippery slope that threatens judicial independence. Yet a clear line exists between decisional independence and behavioral impunity. The separation of powers protects a judge’s legal reasoning and findings of evidence from legislative retaliation; it does not protect her from the public consequences of making false statements to federal officials (a felony according to 18 U.S.C. § 1001) and gross workplace misconduct. Holding a judge accountable for lying to an investigating chief judge about inexcusable sexual misconduct has zero bearing on the autonomy of her rulings.
When the misconduct is undeniable and thoroughly documented, the constitutional process can operate with bipartisan efficiency. The removals of Judges Walter Nixon and Thomas Porteous were not partisan bloodbaths. In those impeachments, a self-respecting House and Senate briefly located its spine to defend the dignity of the judiciary.
The fault, my friends, is ours for permitting our representatives to remain passive spectators while the judiciary administers its own double standards. My own representative, the Honorable Jamie Raskin, serves as the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee—the very body charged with initiating the process of high oversight. Yet, in our deeply fractured polity, we have arrived at a grim equilibrium where factional loyalty routinely overrides basic institutional self-respect. Many politicians would sooner tolerate misconduct from an ideologically aligned appointee than risk debate on the character of the magistrates who rule us.
A society that allows its highest magistrates to hide fireable offenses and material falsehoods behind the purple curtain of private reprimands is a society sliding into decadence. If the traditional avenues of accountability are to be restored, Congress must aggressively reclaim its constitutional duties. We must demand that our representatives stop hiding behind the self-policing mechanisms of the 1980 Act. When a judge breaches the standard of good behavior so egregiously that she corrupts the very atmosphere of her court, the remedy is not a private apology—it is impeachment and removal.
Read more We Are Only in Act III of the Iran War
