Federal judges face misconduct probes in three states

Three federal judges in Georgia, Idaho and Michigan are under scrutiny at once, putting a bright light on a system that depends largely on judges policing judges. In Atlanta, a Republican lawmaker filed articles of impeachment Tuesday against a judge accused of having sex in chambers and denying it to investigators until evidence emerged. In Idaho, Ninth Circuit Judge Ryan Nelson pleaded not guilty to misdemeanor battery after an April parking-lot confrontation captured on video. In Michigan, U.S. District Judge Thomas Ludington was arraigned after authorities said he failed to complete required alcohol testing as part of probation tied to a DUI conviction.

The stakes are unusually high because federal judges serve lifetime terms under Article III and can be removed only through impeachment. That gives the judiciary wide independence, but it also makes misconduct cases slow, formal and often politically fraught. Jeremy Fogel of the Berkeley Judicial Institute said the larger reputation of the judiciary, not just the individual judges, is on the line when allegations reach this level. The system is supposed to preserve confidence in the courts; these cases show how fragile that confidence can be when discipline depends on a process many people never see.

The Idaho case has become a test of how quickly the courts can respond once a matter comes to light. Chief Ninth Circuit Judge Mary Murguia said in a Monday order that the courts had only very recently received the information and opened an internal investigation. Nelson is accused of grabbing a motorist’s eyeglasses and stomping on them during the April confrontation. His lawyer said the episode was out of character, that Nelson was embarrassed, and that he quickly apologized and offered full compensation for the damaged glasses. The fact that the episode allegedly went unreported publicly for months while he continued to hear cases only sharpens the concern over delayed disclosure.

Michigan adds another layer to the picture. Ludington faced arraignment after state authorities said he failed to complete required alcohol testing as part of probation following a DUI conviction. That case sits alongside the Atlanta and Idaho matters as a reminder that the judiciary’s internal standards cover more than courtroom rulings. They extend to conduct that can undercut public trust long before a formal discipline decision is reached.

Under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980, any person can file a complaint alleging that a federal judge engaged in conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of court business, or is unable to discharge the duties of office because of a mental or physical disability. The judiciary says the process cannot be used to challenge the correctness of a judge’s ruling, and the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts publishes annual statistics on complaints and outcomes. Yet critics say the system is hard to navigate and too often discourages complaints. One public-interest group said just two federal law clerks filed complaints under the act in 2025, even though the judiciary’s 2023 workplace conduct survey identified 106 clerks who described actionable mistreatment that year.

The broader institution is growing even as its accountability machinery looks strained. In fiscal year 2025, the federal bench included 179 circuit judges and 673 district judges, and the Judicial Conference of the United States asked Congress in early 2025 to create 71 additional Article III judgeships. As the caseload and the bench expand, the question is whether a system built on internal review, rare impeachment and complaint procedures that few people use can police itself fast enough to satisfy the public it serves.