U.S. District Judge Eleanor Ross of the Northern District of Georgia has issued a written apology to a former law clerk for what she described as "harmful, offensive, and unprofessional behavior," as two Republican members of Congress from Georgia push forward with impeachment resolutions against her.
The controversy centers on allegations that Ross engaged in sexual activity with a high-ranking Atlanta Police Department officer in her courthouse chambers during business hours. An investigation initiated by 11th U.S. Circuit Chief Judge William Pryor found that Ross had sex in the courthouse, attended a partisan political event, and initially provided false statements when confronted with the allegations.
What the Left Is Saying
Democratic lawmakers have largely remained quiet on the matter as the impeachment resolutions move through Congress. Judicial ethics advocates aligned with progressive causes have emphasized the importance of due process in judicial misconduct cases, noting that federal judges appointed for life are entitled to full evidentiary proceedings before removal.
The broader concern among some legal observers is that impeaching a judge over personal conduct rather than judicial decision-making could set a precedent for targeting jurists based on lifestyle choices. Critics argue that Congress should focus on whether rulings demonstrate bias rather than examining private behavior, though they acknowledge that the alleged workplace misconduct and potential obstruction of the inquiry present separate questions from extramarital affairs alone.
What the Right Is Saying
Rep. Andrew Clyde, R-Ga., who filed three articles of impeachment against Ross, said her actions demonstrated she was incapable of displaying integrity or impartiality on the federal bench. His resolution accuses Ross of improper sexual activity in chambers, attending a partisan political event hosted by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis' campaign, and obstructing an official proceeding.
"When judges become political activists or engage in judicial misconduct, Congress bears both the responsibility and the constitutional authority to hold them accountable," Clyde said. "Judge Ross' deeply disturbing actions prove she is incapable of displaying integrity or showing impartiality."
Rep. Clay Fuller, R-Ga., who filed a separate impeachment article, said Ross engaged in conduct fundamentally incompatible with judicial service. "The American people expect and deserve a judiciary system that operates with the highest level of integrity, professionalism, and accountability," Fuller stated. "Judge Ross has no place on the federal bench."
Clyde's cosponsors include Reps. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo.; Buddy Carter, R-Ga.; Andy Harris, R-Md.; and several other Republicans.
What the Numbers Show
Ross received a private reprimand that did not publicly name her, issued after an internal judicial investigation found sufficient evidence of misconduct. She agreed not to seek the position of chief judge for the district when eligible and to write apology letters to six former law clerks.
The impeachment resolutions cite alleged conduct spanning from approximately October 2023 through October 2025. According to Clyde's articles, at least three former clerks heard sounds from the judge's chambers during business hours, creating what the resolution described as an uncomfortable workplace environment.
Federal judges serve lifetime appointments under Article III of the Constitution and can only be removed through impeachment by Congress, which has occurred fewer than 20 times in U.S. history.
The Bottom Line
Ross nominated by former President Barack Obama in 2014, now faces a formal congressional removal process that remains in early stages. The two separate impeachment resolutions from Clyde and Fuller may eventually be consolidated into a single House vote.
The judge has apologized for her conduct and acknowledged providing a previously deficient apology to the affected clerk. Judicial discipline proceedings have concluded with a private reprimand, though the congressional response operates independently of internal court accountability mechanisms.
What happens next: The House Judiciary Committee would need to advance any impeachment articles before a full House vote. Senate conviction requires a two-thirds majority, meaning some bipartisan support would be necessary for removal. No timeline has been set for committee action on either resolution.