The complaint stems from an incident on October 3, 2025, where Judge Ludington was involved in a car crash. According to police reports and media coverage, he showed signs of impairment upon police arrival and failed multiple sobriety tests. At the hospital, he registered a blood alcohol content well above the legal limit and was later charged with operating a vehicle while intoxicated and with a high BAC offense. He has pleaded not guilty.

The incident was not publicly disclosed for nearly four months. Fix the Court noted that Ludington’s crash and arrest were not publicly disclosed by the court or the judge but by outside media. During that time, Ludington continued to work on his caseload and received new case assignments.

Only recently, E.D. Michigan announced that Ludington would take a leave of absence pending resolution of the state charges. Fix the Court’s complaint asks the judicial council to determine whether discipline, including a possible push toward retirement, is warranted and to investigate how the incident was kept from the public for so long.

On February 9, Fix the Court reached out to Sixth Circuit Chief Judge Jeffrey Sutton to inquire about Ludington’s status and had not heard back at the time the complaint was filed. They also contacted Ludington’s attorney, with no response.

Fix the Court stated that the complaint was filed “because accountability and transparency are necessary to maintaining trust in the federal courts. When judges fail to meet ethical standards, the system must respond with clear and public admonishment.”

A copy of the original filing can be found here.

The post Fix the Court Files Misconduct Complaint Against Michigan Judge Thomas Ludington Over Drunk Driving Arrest appeared first on AbusiveDiscretion.

According to Fix the Court, Sutton’s dismissal orders reinforce judicial independence and the standards for evaluating misconduct allegations. Only one of the three dismissals was appealed, but the organization is confident that the Sixth Circuit Judicial Council will uphold Sutton’s decision, as the complaint lacks a basis for disciplinary action.

Fix the Court also welcomed D.C. Circuit Judge Sri Srinivasan’s decision to ask Chief Justice Roberts to transfer the complaints for review outside of the D.C. Circuit. The organization believes complaints against circuit judges, or judges who share courthouses with circuit judges, should be handled by an external body to avoid potential conflicts.

Fix the Court stated that the complaints are part of a trend of politically motivated actions against judges over their rulings, which is not a basis for filing a complaint under the misconduct law. The organization emphasized that the proper method to challenge a ruling is through appeal.

Fix the Court warns that superficial filings risk turning the judicial misconduct system into a partisan battlefield rather than a mechanism for addressing genuine ethical breaches.

Source: Fix the Court

The post Fix the Court Applauds Dismissal of Complaints Against Judge James Boasberg appeared first on AbusiveDiscretion.

The unusual step of lodging a complaint was taken by U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi in July. The complaint alleged that Chief U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, presiding in Washington, D.C., made inappropriate remarks about President Donald Trump during a gathering of the judiciary’s policymaking body, known as the Judicial Conference.

Chief U.S. Circuit Judge Jeffrey Sutton of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a newly-released order, dated December 19, stating that the alleged statements, even if substantiated, would not constitute a violation of judicial ethics rules. The Justice Department has not issued a statement regarding the dismissal. Judge Boasberg, appointed by former Democratic President Barack Obama, has also declined to comment on the matter.

The complaint was announced shortly after Boasberg indicated he might initiate disciplinary actions against Justice Department lawyers for their handling of a lawsuit brought by Venezuelan individuals contesting their removal to a prison in El Salvador.

In April, Judge Boasberg concluded that the Trump administration appeared to have acted “in bad faith” by hastily organizing three deportation flights on March 15. These flights coincided with emergency court proceedings assessing the legality of the deportations.

The Justice Department’s complaint centered on comments attributed to Boasberg by the conservative media outlet The Federalist. These comments were allegedly made during a U.S. Judicial Conference meeting in March, which was attended by Chief U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Roberts.

The Justice Department contended that Boasberg expressed concerns to Roberts and others that the administration might disregard court rulings, potentially triggering “a constitutional crisis.” The DOJ argued that these comments violated the judicial code of conduct and that Boasberg acted improperly based on his beliefs regarding the litigation involving the Venezuelans, who were removed from the U.S. under the Alien Enemies Act.

Due to potential conflicts of interest among judges in D.C., Justice Roberts transferred the complaint to the Cincinnati-based 6th Circuit’s Judicial Council.

Judge Sutton stated that the DOJ lacked sufficient evidence that Boasberg made the alleged statements. Moreover, even if the statements were made, they would not be improper within the context of the judicial policymaking body’s closed-door meeting.

Sutton wrote that a judge’s expression of concern about executive-branch compliance with judicial orders, whether justified or not, is within the customary topics discussed at such meetings, including judicial independence, judicial security, and inter-branch relations, and thus does not violate the Codes of Judicial Conduct.

Source: Reuters

The post Federal Appeals Court Dismisses Misconduct Complaint Against Judge James Boasberg appeared first on AbusiveDiscretion.

The document notes that Justice Gorsuch recused himself from five cases involving the University of Colorado while serving as an adjunct professor at its law school. This information was made public through a detailed record of his recusals provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee during his nomination to the Supreme Court in 2017.

Justice Barrett, who taught at Notre Dame Law School before her appointment to the Seventh Circuit, employed a “conflicts sheet” to identify potential conflicts of interest. This sheet was integrated into the conflict-checking systems of the lower courts, automatically excluding her from cases where the university was involved. However, while Barrett’s specific recusal instances were not disclosed, her teaching position was acknowledged in the conflicts sheet submitted to the courts.

In contrast, the report points out that judges at Ohio State University’s Moritz College of Law have shown minimal recusal activity despite their adjunct roles. Fix the Court’s investigation revealed a lack of recusal from many judges associated with the university, with only one notable exception: Judge Algenon Marbley, who recused himself from a case in 2015, shortly after resigning from the university’s board.

The report also examines the case of Judge Judith Levy of the Eastern District of Michigan, who heard a case involving the University of Michigan earlier this year. Although she remains associated with the university as a potential adjunct professor, she did not recuse herself, raising questions about her impartiality. This decision contrasts sharply with that of Sixth Circuit Judge Ray Kethledge, who recused himself from a significant 2012 en banc case concerning the state’s ban on considering race in college admissions due to his ties with Michigan Law.

Fix the Court argues for a uniform standard for recusal among judges in similar financial and situational contexts. The organization emphasized that judges with equivalent financial arrangements and connections to parties involved in litigation should demonstrate consistent behavior regarding recusal.

The report critiques a three-judge panel from the Sixth Circuit, which ruled last year that recusal is not mandatory for judges serving as adjunct professors at law schools affiliated with parties in a case. The panel referenced rulings from three other circuit courts that arrived at similar conclusions under comparable circumstances.

To bolster its call for transparency, Fix the Court has sent a letter to the Judicial Conference’s Codes of Conduct Committee, urging the release of key government documents related to judicial ethics, including the Guide to Judiciary Policy and the Compendium of Selected Opinions. The organization argues that public access to these materials is essential for assessing the potential need for recusal in specific instances.

The report concludes with the assertion that an objective observer familiar with cases involving a university where a judge is employed would likely expect that judge to recuse themselves, particularly when financial compensation is involved. Despite established practices from Justices Gorsuch and Barrett, along with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s recusal in a related affirmative action case, many judges continue to resist recusal in similar contexts.

Fix the Court’s findings and requests for increased transparency aim to foster public trust in the judicial system by ensuring judges adhere to consistent ethical standards regarding recusal.

Source: Fix the Court

The post Report Reveals Inconsistent Recusal Practices Among Judges with Law School Ties appeared first on AbusiveDiscretion.

In 2020, Orta was a spectator sitting in the back row of a Tiffin, Ohio courtroom to watch a proceeding involving her boyfriend. Judge Repp then detained Orta and ordered her to submit to forced drug testing without cause. When she refused, Repp held her in contempt without due process and jailed her overnight. The Sixth Circuit agreed Repp clearly violated Orta’s rights and committed “judicial misconduct.”

Yet the court still chose to protect Repp from consequences, rationalizing he acted within his jurisdiction. This flawed reasoning gives judges unchecked authority to strip citizens of liberty without accountability. As Orta’s lawyer argued, “Judicial immunity should not protect a judge performing prosecutorial functions like initiating criminal prosecutions.”

Here, Repp created a crime out of thin air to persecute an innocent citizen. As Orta stated, “What is to stop Repp from convicting spectators of crimes they did not commit?”

The Sixth Circuit made a callous assertion, contending that Judge Repp had already faced sufficient professional consequences.

“In conclusion, we agree with the district court that Judge Repp’s “actions are inexcusable” and emphasize that we “in no way condone the actions that led [Orta] to file this lawsuit,” the Sixth Circuit stated. “But we nevertheless agree that he receives absolute judicial immunity for this misconduct.”

This decision, however, denied justice to Orta, who was the victim in this case. The underlying message is unmistakable – the Sixth Circuit appears to endorse the idea that judges enjoy a level of immunity that places them above the law.

This case reveals an urgent need to revisit judicial immunity. When judges violate rights from the bench, their robes should not shield them. As Orta’s lawyer concluded, “Even with immunity, Repp cannot escape the consequences of his actions.” Tragically, the Sixth Circuit allowed him to do precisely that.

A copy of the original filing can be found here.

The post Sixth Circuit Shields Judge, Fuels ‘Above the Law’ Debate appeared first on AbusiveDiscretion.

The case is styled, “In re: Complaint of Judicial Misconduct”, with case no. 06-21-90083.

According to the Memorandum and Order, under Rule 11(e) of the Rules for Judicial Conduct and Judicial Disability Proceedings, the chief judge is permitted to conclude a complaint in light of intervening events.

“Since the filing of this complaint, the subject judge has died. As such, the complaint must therefore be concluded under Rule 11(e), Rules for Judicial-Conduct and Judicial-Disability Proceeding.”

Accordingly, the Chief Judge ordered that the complaint be concluded pursuant to the aforementioned Rule.

A copy of the original filing can be found here.

The post Sixth Circuit Judicial Council concludes judicial misconduct complaint upon subject judge’s death appeared first on AbusiveDiscretion.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ordered Polster now provide status updates on his remand orders every 30 days in the Northern District of Ohio.

“The seemingly mandatory nature of this provision weighs in favor of finding that the district court clearly abused its discretion in abating rulings on the pending remand motions,” Sixth Circuit Senior Judge Ralph Guy and Judges Eric Clay and Bernice Donald wrote.

According to Law.com:

Polster claims little responsibility for his shortcomings and wrote that the executive and legislative branches of the U.S. government would’ve been better equipped to solve the opioid crisis.

“In retrospect, I realize my failure to explain my reasoning may have created the impression that my decision was arbitrary, and I apologize if I unintentionally created that impression for any of the parties, their counsel, or this court,” Polster said.

Source: Law.com

The post U.S. District Judge Dan Polster blatantly abuses discretion by failing to address hundreds of remand motions appeared first on AbusiveDiscretion.