ATLANTA—The U.S. Department of Justice on Friday filed a motion asking a federal judge in the 11th Judicial Circuit to recuse herself from a Georgia election‑records case after learning that the judge attended an event honoring Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, the prosecutor who recovered indictments against former President Donald Trump.
The DOJ’s filing, read by attorneys on Friday, argues that a judge who went to a party celebrating a Democratic electoral victory should not preside over a case involving the same president’s alleged election interference. If Judge Ross is indeed the Subject Judge, that conduct gives rise to an appearance of bias, which requires Judge Ross to recuse herself from this election‑related case, the filing writes.
The request is part of a broader disciplinary case. In February the Judicial Council of the 11th Circuit imposed a private reprimand on an unnamed federal judge for traveling to a district‑attorney campaign event where the judge had allegedly had sex in the courthouse with a high‑ranking uniformed police officer. The committee found the judge’s attendance to be a partisan act that violated the Council’s policies and concluded that the judge had misled investigators about the circumstances.
The judge cited in the DOJ motion is U.S. District Judge Eleanor Ross of Atlanta. Ross, who was nominated by President Barack Obama in 2014 and confirmed by the Senate in November of that year, has been a federal judge in the 11th Circuit since 2011. She previously served in the Fulton County district‑attorney’s office where she worked under Willis before Willis was appointed district attorney in January 2021.
Ross is currently presiding over a federal lawsuit filed by the Justice Department against Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger over the release of voter lists. Raffensperger has maintained that Georgia law prohibits the release of confidential voting data unless specific conditions are met and that the DOJ had not satisfied those conditions. He said he sent the public part of the voter roll to the Justice Department in December.
According to the DOJ, Ross was scheduled to hold a hearing in the case on Wednesday. The DOJ has requested that the hearing be delayed while the judge recusses.
A judge who attended a party celebrating the election of a Democrat best known for prosecuting a Republican President for alleged election interference cannot then preside over a case concerning that President’s efforts to ensure election integrity, the motion said.
The DOJ filed a brief under the Seventh Circuit’s rules, highlighting the appearance of bias rather than the merits of the case itself. It also noted that the separate allegations of sexual misconduct were not the subject of the recusal motion.
Simultaneously, the Atlanta Police Department has opened an investigation to determine whether the officer who allegedly had sex with the judge in his chambers is a law‑enforcement official.
The DOJ’s memo references a larger federal campaign that sued multiple states for access to voter lists. The case is widely seen as part of a broader effort to scrutinize state election officials that the Department sees as holding records that undercut the Department’s ‘voter list” program.
Raffensperger has publicly defended Georgia’s election laws and claimed the DOJ’s claim is an overreach. He said his office sent the public portion of the rolls to the DOJ in December, citing a standard sharing agreement.
The DOJ’s motion to remove Ross is the latest development in a fight for control over election records. The case could prompt a stay of proceedings, or it may lead a judge to step aside. Either way, the DOJ’s concern is that a perceived partisan association could compromise the impartiality of the federal court.
The DOJ attorneys plan to present the recusal request to Judge K. Kim, an administrative judge, and will seek an order from the circuit court to enforce the recusal plan.
The contentious issue embodies deep divisions over election integrity in the United States, as federal and state governments debate the proper balance between the protection of confidential voter data and the public's right to transparency.
*For more updates on the Justice Department’s approach and ongoing election‑record disputes, follow our live coverage in the Metaverse press‑room via your avatar in the virtual newsroom.*
The DOJ’s filing, read by attorneys on Friday, argues that a judge who went to a party celebrating a Democratic electoral victory should not preside over a case involving the same president’s alleged election interference. If Judge Ross is indeed the Subject Judge, that conduct gives rise to an appearance of bias, which requires Judge Ross to recuse herself from this election‑related case, the filing writes.
The request is part of a broader disciplinary case. In February the Judicial Council of the 11th Circuit imposed a private reprimand on an unnamed federal judge for traveling to a district‑attorney campaign event where the judge had allegedly had sex in the courthouse with a high‑ranking uniformed police officer. The committee found the judge’s attendance to be a partisan act that violated the Council’s policies and concluded that the judge had misled investigators about the circumstances.
The judge cited in the DOJ motion is U.S. District Judge Eleanor Ross of Atlanta. Ross, who was nominated by President Barack Obama in 2014 and confirmed by the Senate in November of that year, has been a federal judge in the 11th Circuit since 2011. She previously served in the Fulton County district‑attorney’s office where she worked under Willis before Willis was appointed district attorney in January 2021.
Ross is currently presiding over a federal lawsuit filed by the Justice Department against Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger over the release of voter lists. Raffensperger has maintained that Georgia law prohibits the release of confidential voting data unless specific conditions are met and that the DOJ had not satisfied those conditions. He said he sent the public part of the voter roll to the Justice Department in December.
According to the DOJ, Ross was scheduled to hold a hearing in the case on Wednesday. The DOJ has requested that the hearing be delayed while the judge recusses.
A judge who attended a party celebrating the election of a Democrat best known for prosecuting a Republican President for alleged election interference cannot then preside over a case concerning that President’s efforts to ensure election integrity, the motion said.
The DOJ filed a brief under the Seventh Circuit’s rules, highlighting the appearance of bias rather than the merits of the case itself. It also noted that the separate allegations of sexual misconduct were not the subject of the recusal motion.
Simultaneously, the Atlanta Police Department has opened an investigation to determine whether the officer who allegedly had sex with the judge in his chambers is a law‑enforcement official.
The DOJ’s memo references a larger federal campaign that sued multiple states for access to voter lists. The case is widely seen as part of a broader effort to scrutinize state election officials that the Department sees as holding records that undercut the Department’s ‘voter list” program.
Raffensperger has publicly defended Georgia’s election laws and claimed the DOJ’s claim is an overreach. He said his office sent the public portion of the rolls to the DOJ in December, citing a standard sharing agreement.
The DOJ’s motion to remove Ross is the latest development in a fight for control over election records. The case could prompt a stay of proceedings, or it may lead a judge to step aside. Either way, the DOJ’s concern is that a perceived partisan association could compromise the impartiality of the federal court.
The DOJ attorneys plan to present the recusal request to Judge K. Kim, an administrative judge, and will seek an order from the circuit court to enforce the recusal plan.
The contentious issue embodies deep divisions over election integrity in the United States, as federal and state governments debate the proper balance between the protection of confidential voter data and the public's right to transparency.
*For more updates on the Justice Department’s approach and ongoing election‑record disputes, follow our live coverage in the Metaverse press‑room via your avatar in the virtual newsroom.*
