On Monday, June 8, 2026, retired Seventh Circuit Judge Diane Wood published an opinion piece in Bloomberg Law discussing the mechanisms for disciplining federal judges, particularly in light of a recent case involving U.S. District Court Judge Eleanor Ross.

Wood highlighted the constitutional protections afforded to federal judges, including life tenure and salary protection, which make impeachment the primary, albeit difficult, constitutional remedy for serious misconduct.

The article then introduced the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 as a statutory framework designed to address misconduct and impairments that fall short of impeachable offenses. This act provides a process for meaningful discipline of judges for ethical violations, harassment, crimes, or incapacitation.

Wood detailed how the Eleventh Circuit recently invoked this statute to address allegations against Judge Ross of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The misconduct involved a personal relationship between Judge Ross and a law enforcement officer whose department frequently appeared before her. As this behavior was reportedly unrelated to any specific case, the standard appellate review process was not applicable.

Following the chief judge of the circuit receiving reliable information, an investigation was conducted by a committee. This committee recommended a private reprimand for Judge Ross. Additionally, Judge Ross was required to agree not to seek the position of chief judge of her district and to apologize to those affected by her conduct.

The Eleventh Circuit Council, the governing body for federal courts in Alabama, Florida, and Georgia, accepted this sanction after Judge Ross confessed and expressed remorse, which the committee found to be genuine. This decision was subsequently affirmed by the Judicial Conduct and Disability Committee of the Judicial Conference of the U.S., the national governing body for the federal judiciary. The Judicial Conduct and Disability Committee possesses broad authority under the Conduct Act, ranging from clearing a judge to recommending impeachment proceedings to the House of Representatives.

Wood acknowledged arguments that the system is too lenient and that such misconduct should be made public. However, she explained that the Conduct Act’s powers are constrained by the constitutional protections of a judge’s tenure. She noted that some view the removal of a judge’s caseload as a de facto temporary removal, but emphasized that the judge remains in office and continues to receive her salary.

Drawing on her own experience as chief judge of the Seventh Circuit, Wood expressed understanding of the delicate balance involved in these cases. She stated that the Judicial Conduct and Disability Committee must weigh what best ensures the cessation of misconduct and assess the sincerity of a judge’s remorse and commitment to change.

Wood concluded that the system established by the Conduct Act effectively ensures judges are held accountable and uphold expected standards, providing a crucial mechanism for judicial oversight.

 

 

Source: Bloomberg Law