A federal judge who was not publicly named but was privately reprimanded by the Judicial Council of the Eleventh Circuit is accused of repeatedly having sex in chambers with a high-ranking law enforcement officer. The disciplinary decision describes an investigation that included forensic testing of a couch cushion in the judge’s chambers and sound testing to determine whether clerks could hear the sexual activity from their work area. The Eleventh Circuit covers Florida, Georgia, and Alabama.
The conduct came to light after a law clerk raised concerns in a complaint, which the chief circuit judge identified on September 30, 2025. The complaint said that on multiple occasions, clerks could hear the judge having sex with the unnamed uniformed law enforcement officer in their chambers during work hours. The officer worked for a police department that was involved in litigation in the district of the subject judge, but did not find that the judge had presided over any cases involving the department.
The judicial council upheld previous determinations made by a special committee formed to investigate the complaint. While the judge who was the subject of the complaint was sanctioned by the committee, its members declined to issue a public reprimand, which would likely have named the judge. Bloomberg Law reports that the judge in question is Federal District Court Judge Eleanor Ross. However, this has not been officially confirmed, so we’ll continue to use “judge,” considering it was a private reprimand.
The special committee found the judge had:
- Engaged in an extramarital affair with a high-ranking law enforcement officer in chambers during working hours
- Attended a partisan political event
- Made false statements to the chief circuit judge regarding the activities that were subject to investigation
The judge’s conduct demonstrated a gross lack of judgment and created a work environment that was uncomfortable and troubling to their staff, the special committee found. Additionally, the committee found the judge’s actions made them vulnerable to extortion or blackmail.
In addition to reporting the subject judge having sex in chambers, the clerk’s complaint said the judge failed to mentor the clerks and became visibly angry with them, including yelling and cursing at them. The clerk said that on one occasion, the judge claimed to have had too many martinis during a campaign event for an unnamed district attorney the night before.
A Private Reprimand
Despite finding the subject judge had an extramarital affair in chambers, lied about it to investigators, and also attended a political event, the special committee still recommended a private reprimand that would keep the judge’s name from becoming public. The sanctions included:
- Letters of apology to the six law clerks interviewed during the investigation
- Forgoing service as chief judge, if otherwise eligible
- Indefinitely refraining from serving on any judicial conference committees
The special committee ultimately decided not to impose more severe sanctions because the subject judge corrected the false statements and was candid with the committee; had ended the affair and was unlikely to engage in similar misconduct; and had otherwise rendered exemplary service to the court.
Judge Initially Denied Claims of Affair
The chief circuit judge notified the subject judge of the investigation within a month of receiving the clerk’s complaint. The subject judge responded the same day by denying the accusations and characterizing them as outrageous and baseless. The judge seemed to know which clerk had filed the report and implied that it had been filed after the clerk had been repeatedly chastised for poor performance. The subject judge also emailed the chief district judge to deny the allegations and claimed to be unaware of the visitor’s identity.
The special committee was named by the chief circuit judge to investigate the clerk’s allegations, and experienced counsel was retained to help. The investigation included interviewing the subject judge’s six law clerks and reviewing documents, emails, and text messages. The visitor logs and video surveillance were examined, along with the testing of the cushion and what the clerks could hear.
The final report issued by the special committee found the subject judge had been conducting an extramarital affair with an officer in a “certain police department.” During the period when the affair was ongoing, the police department was involved in numerous criminal and civil cases being litigated in the district. The judge could have created a conflict of interest by being assigned cases involving the department because they did not disclose the affair to any other judges, courthouse staff, or litigants. While the special committee found no evidence that the judge had heard a case involving the department, it said that was the result of happenstance rather than the judge trying to mitigate a potential conflict.
Committee Found Numerous False Statements
When initially responding to the investigation, the subject judge made a number of false statements to the chief circuit judge and the chief district judge. Specifically, the subject judge denied engaging in sexual intercourse and did not know the identity of the other party named in the complaint. The special committee found the false statements violated the Rules for Judicial-Conduct and Judicial-Disability Proceedings (JC&D Rules).
The subject judge eventually withdrew the false statements, but the special committee still found the judge to be liable. However, by the time the subject judge recanted, the committee had already spent considerable time investigating the clerk’s allegations. Additionally, at the time the subject judge withdrew the false statements, the committee said it was highly likely the judge knew the falsehoods were soon to be exposed, or already had been exposed.
Attendance at Political Event
While it has received far less attention than the findings that a federal judge had a sexual affair in chambers, the special committee also sanctioned the subject judge for attending a political event hosted by a district attorney’s campaign. The judge contended they attended only to reunite with former colleagues and did not speak publicly, make a donation, or otherwise participate in any political activity. Yet the special committee said that judges are expressly prohibited from attending a dinner or event hosted by a political organization or candidate. Despite being a one-time lapse in judgment, the committee found it still constituted misconduct.
