Fix the Court today is calling on the House Judiciary Committee to open an impeachment inquiry into N.D. Georgia Judge Eleanor Ross for actions that have impugned her integrity, imperiled her ability to do her job and may have risen to the level of impeachable high crimes and misdemeanors.

Judge Ross’ exploits are well-known: she had sex with an Atlanta Police Department deputy chief in her chambers on several occasions and within earshot of her staff, and worse, she lied about it when confronted by Eleventh Circuit Chief Judge Bill Pryor.

In its report, the Special Committee appointed by the Eleventh Circuit Judicial Council appeared to conclude (p. 16) that Judge Ross was unfit for office: “…[T]he publication of these facts […] have greatly damaged [Judge Ross’] credibility as a judge and brought disrepute to the federal judiciary.”

And yet, neither the Judicial Council nor the Judicial Conference’s JC&D Committee handed down a punishment that was commensurate with her actions.

At the very least a temporary suspension and a long-term removal of APD cases from her docket should have been in the offing as soon as the Special Committee produced its final report on Dec. 10 — five-and-a-half months ago.

Moving forward, FTC’s recommendation is that as soon as possible, Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan and Ranking Member Jamie Raskin should appoint a 12-member task force comprising Judiciary Committee members (six Republicans and six Democrats, none from Georgia) to investigate Judge Ross, just as the Committee did in 2008 following allegations of misconduct committed by E.D. Louisiana Judge Thomas Porteous. (Porteous was impeached in 2010 and resigned later that year.) The task force at that time hired outside counsel to investigate the allegations, and it should do the same now.

Another recent judicial impeachment may offer helpful context once the task force begins its work. In 2009, the House impeached S.D. Texas Judge Samuel Kent over charges of sexual assault, obstructing an official proceeding and making false statements — statements that were given during an investigation conducted by a Fifth Circuit-appointed Special Committee (p. 3).

As misconduct expert Arthur Hellman told House Judiciary that year (also cited in the House’s impeachment report, p. 19), “False testimony by a federal judge in a judicial misconduct proceeding falls easily within the realm of ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ that warrant impeachment.”

Fix the Court’s Gabe Roth said: “After an underwhelming result to this point, which looks more like judges protecting their own than serious remediation or punishment, Congress must step in and on a bipartisan basis determine if Judge Ross recanting her false statements is enough to shield her from harsher penalties. Maybe Congress agrees with the Judicial Council and JC&D Committee; maybe Judge Ross resigns in the interim. Either way, this episode shows why Article I ultimately holds the cards when it comes to judicial misconduct, and it must use its constitutional authority to dig deeper here.”

Contemporaneous with the impeachment inquiry, the Judiciary Committee might consider reforming the judicial misconduct law. This could include capping the amount of time that judicial councils and the JC&D Committee have to review complaints, and giving the JC&D Committee more latitude to review a judicial council’s determination when, as here, its recommendation does not match the misconduct. The identities of the judges on the Special Committee, as well as the outside counsel it hired, should be unveiled.

One more reform for consideration: Texas A&M Law Prof. Susan Fortney suggested that Judge Ross be required to pay for the Special Committee investigation; perhaps she should also pay for the Judiciary Committee’s investigation.

Finally, it’s worth noting that an impeachment inquiry in this instance, as has been tradition since ratification, would not concern the judge’s decisions from the bench but rather her conduct and whether she retains the ability to hold a position of public trust.