S.Res. 808

119 SRES 808 IS: Expressing the sense of the Senate that Eleanor L. Ross, judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, engaged in conduct that falls beneath the dignity of her office.
 U.S. Senate
 2026-07-21
 text/xml
 EN
 Pursuant to Title 17 Section 105 of the United States Code, this file is not subject to copyright protection and is in the public domain.
 III  119th CONGRESS  2d Session  S. RES. 808  IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES   July 21, 2026   Mrs. Blackburn  submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the  Committee on the Judiciary    RESOLUTION
Expressing the sense of the Senate that Eleanor L. Ross, judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, engaged in conduct that falls beneath the dignity of her office.
Whereas, between October 2023 and October 2025, Eleanor L. Ross, judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, engaged in a sexual relationship with a high-ranking official of the Atlanta Police Department inside her judicial chambers during regular business hours, including while actively presiding over criminal cases;
Whereas these activities were conducted within close proximity to the judicial staff of Judge Ross, including at least 3 of her then-law clerks;
Whereas, on September 30, 2025, Eleventh Circuit Chief Judge William H. Pryor, Jr., received a complaint about this behavior from a law clerk of Judge Ross and subsequently appointed a special committee to investigate the complaint;
Whereas the special committee determined that Judge Ross lied to Chief Judge Pryor, as well as to the Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, regarding this sexual activity that was conducted in her chambers;
Whereas Judge Ross falsely stated that she had  never engaged in sexual intercourse in [her] office, nor anywhere else in the Courthouse , 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 [had] no idea what this clerk is referring to ;
Whereas Judge Ross did not retract these false statements until October 10, 2025, nearly 2 weeks after making them, by which time the special committee had already collected substantial corroborating evidence, including a review of security camera footage and sign-in logs, background research on the high-ranking law enforcement official, interviews of 5 former law clerks of Judge Ross, inspection of the layout of the chambers of Judge Ross, and laboratory testing of furniture in the chambers of Judge Ross;
Whereas the special committee concluded that Judge Ross engaged in misconduct in her office during court business hours and made materially false and misleading statements to Chief Judge Pryor and Chief District Judge Leigh Martin May that had a detrimental effect on the investigation of the misconduct of Judge Ross and, more broadly, the administration of justice;
Whereas the behavior of Judge Ross violated multiple provisions of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, including—
(1)
canon 2, which states that a judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities;
(2)
canon 2(A), which adds,  A judge should respect and comply with the law and should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. ; and
(3)
the commentary to canon 2(A), which notes,  Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct by judges, including harassment and other inappropriate workplace behavior. ; and
Whereas there is sufficient evidence to conclude that Judge Ross engaged in conduct that falls beneath the dignity of her office: Now, therefore, be it
That it is the sense of the Senate that—
(1)
Judge Ross made materially false and misleading statements to the special committee of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit;
(2)
Judge Ross engaged in behavior that does not live up to the high standards our nation expects of the Federal judiciary; and
(3)
Judge Ross’s conduct should be condemned.