By Gabe Roth

This week the Sixth Circuit concluded a complaint against E.D. Michigan Judge Thomas Ludington that Fix the Court filed earlier this year on account of his Oct. 2025 DUI.

Ludington didn’t tell his colleagues about the incident for weeks, and the public only learned about it thanks to the intrepid reporting of the Detroit News.

To conclude the complaint, Chief Judge Sutton worked out an arrangement with Ludington whereby he would remain on leave until Sept. 1, 2027, which is when his Emmet County court-imposed probation ends, and take senior status before returning to the bench.

In addition, Ludington committed to continue his treatment and undergo regular, and random, alcohol testing, with the results being disclosed to the chief judge.

In our view, remaining on leave during his probation and then taking senior status, continuing treatment and undergoing random testing — that’s a fair result.

The problem is that it took too long to get there.

Ludington made a serious mistake almost a year ago, and instead of coming clean immediately, which would have been the honorable thing to do, he hid his DUI arrest for weeks. (We still don’t know how E.D. Michigan Chief Judge Murphy “learned about [it],” p. 2.)

On top of that, Chief Judges Murphy and Sutton, along with Ludington, then hid the incident from the public for several months. Thankfully, the press caught wind of Ludington‘s arrest in January, and a misconduct process soon began in earnest.

The cover-up, as noted above, was bad. The crime, which could have easily resulted in severe bodily harm to anyone sharing the road with Ludington that October evening, was bad. Taken together, the incident tarnishes not only Ludington but the judiciary writ large.

There are more than 2,400 federal judges, and each one serves in a position of public trust. But how can Americans trust they’re carrying out their duties with the highest level of integrity if an incident like this occurs and remains under the radar for months? Though Sutton at the end of his order writes, ‘Judge Ludington’s response […] deserves credit,’ that is far from the case.

On top of this, Ludington‘s lawyer released a statement this spring implying the judge hadn’t consumed a drop of alcohol on the day of his arrest; that was a terrible disservice to his client and the public. We all viewed the bodycam footage, and Sutton’s order confirms the drinking. The obfuscation from a member of the bar, on behalf of a federal judge, is another disheartening dimension to this demoralizing story.

Finally, it is my hope that Ludington considers donating some of the $380,000 he’s receiving during his leave, which began in February, to local charities involved in alcohol abuse and diversion programs.