Federal panel upholds secret reprimand for judge’s affair and lies

A federal judicial discipline panel kept secret the identity of a U.S. district judge after upholding a private reprimand for an extramarital affair with a high-ranking law enforcement officer, sexual intercourse in chambers during business hours within earshot of staff, attendance at a partisan political event and false statements during the investigation.

The Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability filed its memorandum of decision on May 22 and made it public May 26, affirming an earlier order from the Judicial Council of the Eleventh Circuit dated February 11. The official materials withheld the judge’s name, district and the identity of the law enforcement officer, even while describing misconduct serious enough to warrant formal sanctions.

The case began when Chief Circuit Judge William H. Pryor Jr. identified the complaint on September 30, 2025 and appointed a special committee. That committee issued its final report on December 10, 2025, and the Eleventh Circuit council later adopted findings that included repeated misconduct and troubling behavior toward staff, based in part on an account from a law clerk who said the conduct happened more than once.

As part of the discipline, the judge was ordered to write apology letters to six former law clerks interviewed by investigation counsel. The judge also agreed to forego service as chief judge if otherwise eligible and to indefinitely refrain from serving on any Judicial Conference committee.

The decision puts a spotlight on how the federal judiciary polices itself when misconduct touches both personal behavior and institutional honesty. Under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act, complaints may be filed over conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts. The rules governing those complaints were adopted on March 11, 2008, took effect on April 10, 2008 and were amended on September 17, 2015.

Rule 24 generally allows orders and memoranda to be made public after final action, but a privately communicated reprimand does not require disclosure of the judge’s name. In this case, the panel chose discipline without public identification, a result that preserves confidentiality inside the judiciary while leaving a central question in place: whether secrecy protects public confidence or shields judges from the scrutiny that others in government would face.