Two Republican members of Congress from Georgia have introduced resolutions seeking the impeachment of a federal judge after an investigation found she engaged in sexual activity in her chambers, attended a partisan political event and initially denied the allegations to investigators.
U.S. Reps. Clay Fuller and Andrew Clyde filed the impeachment resolutions against U.S. District Judge Eleanor Ross, who serves on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
Clyde announced the move on social media Tuesday, arguing that Ross’ conduct demonstrated she could no longer serve with the impartiality expected of a federal judge.
“Her deeply disturbing actions prove she is incapable of displaying integrity or impartiality,” Clyde wrote.
“She must be impeached and removed from the bench,” he added.
The impeachment resolutions now place the matter before the House Judiciary Committee, which would decide whether to begin formal proceedings.
Federal judges hold lifetime appointments under the Constitution and can only be removed through impeachment by the House and conviction in the Senate.
Ross declined to comment when reached through her chambers on Tuesday.
The judge was nominated by then-President Barack Obama in 2014 and confirmed by the Senate later that year after previously serving as a state court judge in DeKalb County, Georgia.
Before joining the bench, she spent more than a decade working as both a state and federal prosecutor in the Atlanta area.
The misconduct investigation began after one of Ross’ law clerks reported that the judge had engaged in sexual activity with a high-ranking uniformed police officer inside her chambers on multiple occasions.
According to the complaint, some of those encounters allegedly occurred within earshot of courthouse staff.
The clerk also accused Ross of failing to properly supervise employees and of verbally mistreating members of her staff.
Following an investigation conducted within the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Ross received a private reprimand.
The disciplinary proceeding concluded that the allegations involving sexual activity were substantiated.
Investigators also determined that Ross attended a partisan political event and initially denied the misconduct when first questioned.
Although the disciplinary order did not publicly identify the judge by name, a person familiar with the matter confirmed that Ross was the subject of the investigation.
Chief Judge William Pryor of the 11th Circuit initiated the inquiry after receiving the clerk’s complaint.
When first contacted by Pryor, Ross specifically denied each allegation and suggested the clerk may have fabricated the accusations in retaliation for workplace issues.
Pryor later appointed a special committee to conduct a more extensive investigation.
According to the committee’s report, security logs and surveillance footage documented repeated visits by a uniformed police officer to Ross’ chambers around lunchtime.
Multiple law clerks also reported seeing an individual matching the officer’s description and said they overheard sounds they believed indicated sexual activity.
The investigation additionally examined allegations involving Ross’ supervision of clerks and interns.
Several clerks told investigators that Ross provided little substantive guidance on legal work and rarely edited draft orders prepared by staff.
Although employees described an “eggshell culture” within chambers, investigators did not find sufficient evidence to conclude Ross engaged in abusive workplace behavior.
Ross ultimately admitted to investigators that she had maintained an extramarital sexual relationship with the officer.
She denied claims that she mistreated staff and disputed allegations related to partisan political activity.
The judge acknowledged attending a social gathering involving former colleagues from a district attorney’s office where she once worked but maintained she remained separate from a nearby election victory celebration, The Associated Press reported.
Separately, the Atlanta Police Department has opened its own investigation to determine whether the officer involved in the relationship is one of its employees.
The department has not publicly identified the individual or announced any disciplinary action.
