On Wednesday, April 23, 2025, the Louisiana Supreme Court suspended Baton Rouge District Judge Eboni Johnson Rose for a series of judicial missteps. The court imposed a six-month suspension; however, Judge Rose is only required to serve two months. Additionally, she will be under probation for two years, effective immediately.
The case is entitled “In the Matter of Judge Eboni Johnson Rose,” with case number 2025-O-0390.
Judge Johnson Rose was suspended in August 2024 amid allegations of misconduct, a decision made by the Supreme Court in a split ruling. The court determined that her actions as a district judge posed a “substantial threat of serious harm to the public.” The suspension, which is both significant and uncommon, occurred after the commission recommended her removal following its inquiry into various allegations against her.
The recent disciplinary action arose from a consent agreement in which Judge Rose acknowledged her violations of judicial conduct rules. As part of her punishment, she is mandated to pay $11,196.11.
The decision was met with dissent from Chief Justice John L. Weimer, who argued that the punishment was too lenient given the serious legal errors made by Judge Rose, as well as inappropriate language she used while presiding over cases. He advocated for a more stringent sanction.
Justice William J. Crain also expressed concern, highlighting that Judge Rose had been on paid leave since her suspension was issued over eight months ago. He criticized the situation as akin to a “paid vacation,” noting that taxpayers were effectively covering her salary while another judge assumed her responsibilities. Crain called for reforms in the Louisiana constitution to address the issue of judicial suspensions, emphasizing the need for fairness to taxpayers.
Justice Jay Bowen McCallum similarly dissented, characterizing the sanction as more of a reward than a punishment. He pointed out that the imposed discipline could be perceived as providing Judge Rose with a nine-month paid holiday, along with a financial bonus in the form of a stipend. McCallum stressed the importance of holding judges accountable to the same standards expected of lawyers.
Conversely, Justice Cade Cole supported the discipline, arguing that rejecting the proposed punishment would only prolong the matter and impose additional costs on taxpayers. He expressed a preference for utilizing existing rules rather than extending the investigation further.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
