Untitled section

Eleanor Louise Ross corruptly obstructed, influenced, or impeded an official proceeding, as follows: (1) In September 2025, the Chief Circuit Judge of the Eleventh Circuit received a complaint against Judge Ross based on a memorandum received from the Chief District Judge of Judge Ross’ court that suggested possible misconduct by Judge Ross. (2) On September 29, 2025, the Chief Circuit Judge notified Judge Ross of the report made by the Chief District Judge and requested that Judge Ross respond to the allegations in the Chief District Judge’s memo no later than October 20, 2025. (3) Later the same day, Judge Ross submitted a response that denied each allegation and characterized the allegations as outrageous and baseless. (4) The same day, Judge Ross also sent an email to the Chief District Judge denying the allegations and denying that Judge Ross knew the identity of the alleged visitor to her chambers. (5) On September 30, 2025, after receiving Judge Ross’ response, the Chief Circuit Judge appointed a special committee to investigate the allegations in the complaint. The special committee subsequently retained experienced counsel to assist in conducting the investigation. (6) The special committee found that Judge Ross made numerous, material false statements to the Chief Circuit Judge and the Chief District Judge when initially responding to the allegations. (7) Specifically, Judge Ross falsely stated I have never engaged in sexual intercourse in my office, nor anywhere else in the Courthouse. Judge Ross further falsely stated that she was not sure who this allegation concerns or whether it is alleged to have occurred with different individuals and that she was astounded and confused, and have no idea what this clerk is referring to. (8) Judge Ross did not recant these false statements until October 10, 2025, 11 days after making them, by which time the special committee had already gathered significant corroborating evidence. The special committee found that Judge Ross' recantation came only after she likely knew her false statements had been, or were about to be, exposed, and declined to treat the recantation as absolution. (9) Rule 4(a)(5) of the Judicial-Conduct Rules states that cognizable misconduct includes refusing, without good cause shown, to cooperate in the investigation of a complaint. (10) Judge Ross’ failure to truthfully respond to Chief Judge Pryor’s inquiry constituted a failure to cooperate in the investigation of the complaint and thus an instance of cognizable judicial misconduct. (11) Not only did Judge Ross fail to fulfill her duty to self-report under Rule 4(a)(6), but her false statements to Chief Judge Pryor and to the Chief District Judge constituted affirmative attempts to prevent the Chief Judges from learning of her misconduct, thereby obstructing the judicial conduct process established by Congress. (12) Further, under Section 1001 of Title 18, United States Code (18 U.S.C. 1001), it is a felony to knowingly and willfully make any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation on any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Federal Government. (13) In making numerous, material false statements to the Chief Circuit Judge and the Chief District Judge, Judge Ross' conduct would constitute a felony in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001 in any other Federal context, reflecting the gravity of the misconduct and the degree to which it subverted the integrity of an official proceeding.