There is a bizarre controversy out of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, where a federal judge has been reprimanded for engaging in repeated, loud sexual encounters during office hours in chambers with a police officer. While the judge lied to investigators and disrupted the work of court staff, the Eleventh Circuit decided to give only a “private reprimand” and to withhold the identity of the district court judge. However, legal sleuths have pieced together clues and identified one judge in Atlanta as the likely culprit.

In February, the Judicial Council issued an order with a “private reprimand.” The order contained an array of details that law professor John Blackman analyzed with impressive research. While he admits that he cannot conclusively prove that she is the referenced judge, he declared that “there is only one judge who checks all of those boxes: District Court Judge Eleanor Ross.”

Ironically, among the clues about the judge’s identity, the order mentions that the judge attended the “victory party for a District Attorney” in 2024, the night before “the judge’s summer interns’ first day.” The Georgia primary was on May 21, 2024, and the date coincides with the victory party for Fani Willis, who won the Democratic primary for Fulton County District Attorney. The irony would be crushing since Willis destroyed her own case against Trump and his associates after appointing an attorney with whom she had a sexual relationship.

Putting the judge’s identity aside, I am more concerned with the Circuit’s conclusion that the judge should be left with a private, anonymous reprimand, given the astonishing scope of the misconduct found by the Judicial Council.

The Court describes repeated sexual encounters during office hours that were so audible that clerks and staff were left in uncomfortable silence. The other individual is described as “a high-ranking PD officer.” The court states that

“It is also worth noting the fact that the Subject Judge created a vulnerability to extortion. For two years, the Subject Judge was a federal district judge who routinely heard criminal cases engaged in a secret extramarital relationship with a prominent officer of a large law enforcement agency in the judge’s district—with the affair consisting of sexual intercourse in the Subject Judge’s chambers during working hours.”

The Court describes the awkward moments as staff were subjected to moans and noises from the judge’s chambers as these trysts took place. The court recounts:

“The Subject Judge characterized the allegations as ‘outrageous’ and ‘baseless’ and specifically denied each one.11 Apparently aware that Law Clerk A was the source of the allegations, the Subject Judge noted that the judge had repeatedly chastised Law Clerk A for performance issues, including ‘being on [the clerk’s] cell phone in court and in the office,’ ‘arriving to the office late,’ and wearing attire that the judge considered ‘too casual.’ The Subject Judge implied that Law Clerk A might have made allegations as a means of retaliating against the Subject Judge.”

So this judge not only lied but attacked the clerk. The court order contained emails and communications in which the judge states that the clerk is disgruntled and unreliable. The result was an investigation as the judge continues to lie about the long-standing affair.

The other individual is described solely as a high-ranking police officer.

This is an extraordinary and serious series of ethical violations. It directly undermined the integrity of the court and created a dysfunctional work environment. The officer and the department are likely parties in cases before the court. The judge must be independent in dealing with officers and the department. The use of the chambers for sexual encounters must have created a hostile work environment for many clerks and staff.

Then there are the repeated lies to fellow judges and investigators. Lying to federal investigators can be a crime under 18 U.S.C. 1001, and such cases can come before this judge.

All of this leaves me baffled about the decision to enter a private reprimand. The judge agrees not to serve as Chief Judge or take positions on judicial committees. Yet the judge is allowed to continue to perform that most important function of being a judge. More importantly, counsel and parties are left without confirmation of the judge’s identity. There are myriad cases in which a judge could have a conflict of interest. Parties should be able to raise such conflicts rather than be left wondering if they have “that judge” in random assignments.

The use of court property for sexual liaisons with a police officer and then lying about it should warrant a bit more than an anonymous order, private reprimand, and a waiving of future positions. This judge, who has shown serious ethical concerns, will continue to render judgments on others.

If an officer had repeatedly lied to the court, would the contempt citation for the individual be anonymous with only voluntary waivers of future positions?

In the end, determining the identity of the judge is less challenging than the reasoning of the Judicial Council.