August 7, 2026
For Immediate Release
Contact: Aliza Shatzman, 267-481-2095, aliza.shatzman@legalaccountabilityproject.org
The Legal Accountability Project Urges House Judiciary Committee to Conduct Impeachment Inquiry into Judge Eleanor Ross
Dear Ranking Member Raskin,
I write to urge you to take swift and meaningful action to hold Georgia federal judge Eleanor Ross accountable for egregious misconduct and disturbing abuses of power that threaten not just the staff who work for her, but the very integrity of our federal judicial system. Judge Ross is just the latest in a long line of examples of federal judges who abuse their power with impunity. Both Congress and the federal judiciary are empowered to act, yet to date, both branches of government have failed to do so.
By way of background, I would draw your attention to the 2023 Federal Judiciary Workplace Survey, which underscores the disturbing prevalence of unaddressed misconduct throughout our federal courts. In light of these troubling findings, I urge you to consider an impeachment inquiry into Georgia federal judge Eleanor Ross, whose misconduct is the predictable result of the troubling findings in this 2023 survey.
The survey was conducted by the Federal Judiciary Workplace Conduct Working Group to inform the judiciary's efforts to provide an “exemplary workplace free from discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and abusive conduct." As the Working Group's condensed report makes clear, the judiciary has failed to meet this goal. Sadly, AO Director Conrad has never been questioned about the survey results. He's never been asked by your Committee what he's doing, in light of them, to improve the workplace climate for those who support the daily functioning of our courts--judiciary employees.
While the report's findings are worth reviewing in full, I wanted to flag just a few. Over 900 respondents said they "disagree" or "strongly disagree" with each of the following four statements: (1) "All people who work in my court/employing office are treated fairly regardless of their race, national origin, or color."; (2) "All people who work in my court/employing office are treated fairly regardless of their sex, gender, or gender identity."; (3) "My court/employing office has a climate that values diversity of backgrounds and perspectives."; and (4) "In my court/employing office, opportunities are equally available to people of all backgrounds and demographic groups." (Page 20-21).
12 respondents said they experienced quid pro quo sexual harassment (page 30), and 1,967 respondents said they experienced at least one harassing behavior based on any protected category (page 31) of which 270 said the behavior was severe or pervasive enough to constitute abusive workplace conduct (page 32). In 63 of those instances a federal judge was the one who committed the harassing behavior (page 54).
Similarly, 756 respondents indicated experiencing at least one discriminatory employment action based on at least one protected category (page 61), 101 of which were committed by a judge (page 78). There were 49 instances in which a federal judge committed a discriminatory employment action that could be wrongful conduct (page 79). 4,091 respondents reported experiencing inappropriate or abusive behavior (page 84) of which 922 could be wrongful conduct (page 86). In 166 cases, the person committing the abusive behavior was a federal judge (page 92).
Importantly, while the report found 278 instances of wrongful conduct committed by judges, only two respondents said they filed a complaint under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act (page 118). The most common reasons for not reporting included concerns about retaliation, harm to the victim's career, continuing to work with the person who committed the discrimination after reporting the action, and a belief that nothing would be done (page 121). As it turns out, those concerns were not unfounded: reports of wrongful conduct against any member of the judiciary (not just judges) were frequently followed by retaliation (page 126, 137, 147). And, as you know, judiciary employees are exempt from Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, meaning they are not legally protected against retaliation for reporting misconduct.
The survey results underscore the need for workplace protections for judiciary employees. The judicial branch employs more than 30,000 people (including law clerks, public defenders, and permanent court staff), and yet, it is entirely exempt from all federal anti-discrimination, civil rights, labor, and whistleblower laws. In short, judges are above the very laws they interpret. This legal loophole has enabled a culture of unchecked misconduct behind the bench. The Judiciary Accountability Act (JAA), introduced in 2022 and reintroduced in 2024, would fix that injustice.
The need for reform is also exemplified by former Assistant Federal Public Defender Caryn Strickland's lawsuit against the judiciary, in which she recently filed for certiorari in the Supreme Court. LAP was proud to sign onto an amicus brief in Ms. Strickland's case in collaboration with the Georgia Association of Women Lawyers. Ms. Strickland testified before Congress in 2022, at the same hearing where I provided testimony, about the harassment she experienced, but - more than 4 years later - she still is still fighting for justice and her case is plagued by questions over whether she is entitled to any workplace exceptions at all.
I also wanted to draw your attention to a very recent example of judicial misconduct: Judge Eleanor Ross. Judge Ross had sex in her chambers with a law enforcement officer, in earshot of her clerks, and lied to the court about it. One of her clerks finally reported the in-chambers affair to the Eleventh Circuit last year. Disturbingly, Judge Ross lied about the affair to obstruct the investigation and made a false accusation against her law clerk for reporting - textbook retaliation. Despite confirming the egregious allegations, the Eleventh Circuit issued only a private reprimand. Judge Ross's only discipline was that she was ordered to send apology letters to six clerks which "should be sufficiently specific so as to make clear to the recipient the sexual misconduct for which the judge is apologizing.” The Eleventh Circuit conducted a second inquiry into whether her first apology had been adequate, and found it was not.
Judge Ross is no longer exhibiting "good behavior," the standard for an impeachment inquiry. The question of Ross's continued fitness for office is not a partisan issue - it is a basic question of whether she can still be trusted to perform her constitutional duties fairly, impartially, and responsibly, given that she is tasked with judging litigants' veracity while her own veracity is in question. Given that sexual misconduct investigations launched by the House Ethics Committee prompted several congressmen to resign recently, I urge you to hold life-tenured federal judges who, unlike congressmen, are exempt from Title VII, to at least the same ethical standard. Failure to take action against Judge Ross sends a disturbing message that judiciary employees are not deserving of basic workplace protections and that judges are above the law.
Though 2 Georgia House Republicans recently filed articles of impeachment against Judge Ross, Democrats' silence emboldens unaccountable judges, who know they won't be disciplined for misconduct. I was disappointed that Senator Durbin blocked a Senate resolution to condemn Judge Ross, asserting that such a resolution would "taint the jury" if the Senate ever conducted an impeachment trial and that it’s up to the House Judiciary Committee to investigate judicial misconduct. That is, of course, where you come in.
I urge you to convene a 12-person committee - 6 Democrats, 6 Republicans, none from Georgia - to conduct an impeachment inquiry into Judge Ross's misconduct. Should this committee find evidence to sustain articles of impeachment, you could act with one voice to file such articles. Frankly, given these credible allegations rendering Judge Ross unfit to continue her judicial service, the House Judiciary Committee has a duty to the public - including those whose lives will be impacted by cases in Judge Ross's courtroom - to investigate. The judiciary has proven that it will not hold its own accountable. Senator Durbin has made clear that he will not act until the House does. Given these circumstances, I urge you to spearhead such an inquiry.
A House investigation of Judge Ross's misconduct will not fix the rampant and unchecked misconduct in the judiciary. In the long run, more is required. But how Congress chooses to handle this particularly high-profile instance of blatant misconduct will send a message. It defies logic that congressional calls for accountability extend to Trump administration misconduct but not to judicial misconduct. If House Democrats continue to do nothing, they will enable the toxic workplace culture that pervades the judiciary. Victims of misconduct will be further cowed into silence, believing it's not worth reporting because nothing will be done, and misconduct will continue to go unaddressed. But if the Committee takes up this matter, it will send the opposite message: that victims' voices will be heard and they can receive redress if they speak out. I ask you to act not only for the clerks Judge Ross mistreated, but for judiciary employees nationwide, who LAP hears from every day - who lack workplace protections but don't feel they can safely report the misconduct they experience.
I would appreciate the opportunity to discuss this further with you and members of your judiciary staff at your convenience.
Sincerely,
Aliza Shatzman
President & Founder, The Legal Accountability Project