Two Georgia Republicans filed articles of impeachment against a federal judge in Atlanta after a special committee found she had sex with a police commander in her chambers during business hours, on five occasions over two years, while her law clerks could hear it happening.
Judge Eleanor Ross of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia now faces the most serious consequence available under the Constitution for a life-tenured federal judge. Rep. Andrew Clyde and Rep. Clay Fuller are pressing the House to remove her from the bench, citing not only the sexual misconduct but her dishonesty when confronted about it.
The impeachment push follows a special committee report that found Ross had sexual intercourse in her chambers with a police commander during business hours, in earshot of her law clerks, creating what the report called an "extremely uncomfortable and troubling" workplace environment. The report also found she initially lied about her conduct to the judges investigating it and improperly attended a campaign event.
Ross recently sent revised apology letters to her former clerks. Bloomberg Law reported Thursday that the three-line documents came after earlier reports that Ross had failed to address her conduct as the judiciary required.
In the revised letter, Ross wrote:
"I am writing to you for a second time to convey my deepest apologies for my harmful, offensive, and unprofessional behavior that made your clerkship an unpleasant experience. My initial letter was entirely deficient, as I did not take full accountability for my actions, and I failed to give you the apology that you deserve."
She also wrote: "I am profoundly sorry for exposing you to my inappropriate personal relationship during your clerkship, and for the harm that I have caused you. My actions were patently wrong, and there is no excuse."
That last phrase, "there is no excuse", is doing a lot of work. The judge herself admits there is no defense. Yet she remains on the bench, drawing a federal salary, exercising the power to send people to prison.
This is the same judge whose earlier reprimand for sexual misconduct drew national attention and raised questions about whether a slap on the wrist was sufficient for conduct this egregious.
The misconduct was not a single lapse of judgment. The judge reportedly had sex on five occasions inside her chambers over a span of two years. The encounters happened during business hours. Her law clerks, young attorneys early in their legal careers, working in close quarters with a judge who held enormous power over their professional futures, were subjected to it.
Federal clerkships are among the most prestigious and competitive positions in the legal profession. Clerks work long hours in small offices, often directly adjacent to the judge's chambers. The power imbalance is total. A clerk who complained risked career consequences. A clerk who stayed silent carried the discomfort alone.
When investigators came asking, Ross did not come clean. The special committee report found she initially lied about her conduct to the judges looking into it. That is not a minor detail. A federal judge who lies to a judicial investigation has forfeited the most basic claim to the integrity the office demands.
Questions about judicial accountability and how the federal bench polices itself have grown louder in recent years. The Ross case is a test of whether the system can do more than issue reprimands and hope the problem goes away.
The Associated Press reported Tuesday that Fuller and Clyde are seeking Ross's impeachment. Federal judges are appointed for life and can only be removed from the bench through impeachment, a process that begins in the House Judiciary Committee.
Fuller posted on social media Wednesday, making his case bluntly:
"I am proud to file an Article of Impeachment against one of these rogue judges, Eleanor Ross, for engaging in an extramarital affair in her chambers within earshot of her clerks. And then LYING about it. It's time to hold her accountable."
He added: "There are far too many rogue judges in our federal judiciary who need to be held accountable."
Clyde issued a statement through his congressional office that went further:
"When judges become political activists or engage in judicial misconduct, Congress bears both the responsibility and the constitutional authority to hold them accountable. Judge Ross' deeply disturbing actions prove she is incapable of displaying integrity or showing impartiality. She's simply unfit to remain a U.S. District Court Judge for the Northern District of Georgia, which is why I'm leading the charge to impeach Judge Ross and ultimately remove her from the bench."
Whether the House Judiciary Committee takes up the case remains an open question. Judicial impeachments are rare, only fifteen federal judges have been impeached in American history, and the political will to pursue one requires sustained attention and support from leadership.
Ross was nominated to the federal bench by then-President Barack Obama in 2014, according to the Federal Judicial Center. She has served on the Northern District of Georgia ever since.
The lifetime appointment that was supposed to insulate her from political pressure also insulates her from consequences. Short of impeachment, there is no mechanism to remove a federal judge who admits her own conduct was "patently wrong" and for which "there is no excuse."
That structural reality is precisely why the Constitution vests the impeachment power in Congress. It exists for moments like this, when the judiciary's internal processes produce a reprimand and a revised apology letter, and the public is left wondering whether that is really all that happens.
Other judicial ethics scandals involving inappropriate relationships have ended with resignations. Ross has not resigned. Her revised letters suggest she is trying to satisfy the judiciary's requirements without surrendering her position.
Several questions hang over the case. The name of the police commander involved has not been publicly identified in the reporting reviewed. The exact dates of the five encounters have not been disclosed. The full text of Fuller's article of impeachment has not been released. And the campaign event Ross improperly attended, another finding in the special committee report, has not been detailed.
The House Judiciary Committee has not publicly indicated whether it will take up the impeachment resolution. That decision will reveal whether congressional Republicans are serious about judicial accountability or content to let the filing serve as a press release.
The broader pattern matters too. When government officials at any level, whether law enforcement trainees caught in misconduct or life-tenured judges, face credible findings of wrongdoing and dishonesty, the public's trust in institutions erodes a little more with each pass that gets issued.
Ross's own words make the case against her more effectively than any congressman could. She admits her behavior was "patently wrong." She admits her first apology was "entirely deficient." She admits she failed to take "full accountability." The special committee found she lied to investigators.
In any other workplace in America, an employee caught having sex in the office during business hours, five times, while subordinates listened, and who then lied about it to investigators, would not keep their job. They would not get a second chance to write a better apology letter.
Federal judges hold extraordinary power. They sentence defendants to prison. They rule on constitutional rights. They shape the law for millions. The standard for their conduct should be higher than the standard for a mid-level office manager, not lower.
A three-line apology letter does not meet that standard. Neither does a reprimand. If "there is no excuse," as Judge Ross herself wrote, then there should be no exception to accountability either.
