The “subject judge” in the Eleventh Circuit attended a partisan event for a District Attorney. That would create a conflict of interest for any matters affecting that District Attorney. The Memorandum focused at some length about a potential conflict with the boyfriend’s police department, but there was little focus on a conflict with the District Attorney.
The Eleventh Circuit’s decision to make the reprimand private is confounding on so many levels. Perhaps the most problematic aspect is that the memorandum identified a clear conflict of interest, but deprived the public from knowing which judge had that conflict of interest. How could a litigant who has a case before the subject judge determine whether there is a basis to disqualify?
This question is not a mere hypothetical. The United States sued Brad Raffensperger, the Georgia Secretary of State, for election records. The case was assigned to Judge Eleanor Ross. She, apparently, thought there was no conflict and continued to preside over the case. Then again, given the fact that this is a civil matter, it is unlikely that Judge Ross read any of the briefs or made any actual decisions. She may not even know the case was assigned to her!
Now, the United States has moved to disqualify Judge Ross–sort of.
The United States respectfully requests that Judge Eleanor Ross recuse herself from the above-captioned matter. The Eleventh Circuit’s Judicial Council found that a “Subject Judge” committed judicial misconduct by attending a partisan and political event. That event reportedly honored Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, who rose to nationwide fame for her failed prosecution of President Trump for alleged crimes related to the 2020 election. Public reporting has identified the Subject Judge as Judge Ross. This reported misconduct necessitates Judge Ross’s recusal because, if Judge Ross is indeed the Subject Judge, it creates the appearance of bias. A judge who attended a party celebrating the election of a Democrat best known for prosecuting 2 a Republican President for alleged election interference cannot then preside over a case concerning that President’s efforts to ensure election integrity.
The Department of Justice can’t even say with certainty that Judge Ross is the conflicted judge. How could they? The Eleventh Circuit Council deprived the public of that essential information because Judge Ross said she was really, really sorry.
I’ve given this issue some more thought. The Memorandum of the Eleventh Circuit included so many facts that it was obvious who the judge was. A friend said he fed the opinion into ChatGPT and it spit our Ross’s name in a second. None of these facts were necessary to support what was a private reprimand. If the Council omitted the fact that the interns started right after the party, or simply said there was an event for an elected official (not a DA), it would have been much tougher to drill down the facts. Is it possible that the judges on the Council deliberately included so many identifying facts to quietly signal who the judge was, without saying so out loud? If so, this is not a move to be celebrated. The statute requires confidentiality for proceedings, and that mandate cannot be evaded with some clever dropping of facts. Indeed, if I was Judge Ross, I would be furious. The Council agreed to issue a private reprimand, and then released a report that outed her without much work.
This entire situation stinks many ways over.
I hope Judge Ross actually reads DOJ’s brief and recuses. Or she could just do the honorable thing and resign. But her friend Fani Willis refused to step down and won re-election. So that may be the model.
