[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 119 (Tuesday, July 21, 2026)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4174-S4175]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                 Unanimous Consent Request--S. Res. 808

  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, I rise today with a very simple 
request: I am asking that the Senate speak with a unanimous voice in 
condemning one of the worst acts of judicial misconduct we have seen in 
years.
  Judge Eleanor Ross has been a district judge in the Northern District 
of Georgia for over a decade, and it is clear that she engaged in 
conduct that falls beneath the dignity of her high office in the 
Federal judiciary.
  After a courageous law clerk came forward, a special committee on the 
Eleventh Circuit was appointed and ultimately made several deeply 
disturbing findings.
  First, based on testimony from Judge Ross' law clerks, the committee 
found that over the course of 2 years, Judge Ross engaged in a sexual 
relationship with a high-ranking official of the Atlanta Police 
Department. This conduct occurred in her judicial chambers during 
normal business hours within earshot of her law clerks.
  Now, think about that.
  On top of that, the Atlanta Police Department, in the words of the 
special committee, ``undoubtably was involved in numerous criminal and 
civil cases being litigated'' in the Northern District, underscoring 
how reckless the judge's misconduct truly was.
  Not only did this misconduct create a possibility of an appearance of 
impropriety, an affair like this also exposed Judge Ross to the 
possibility of extortion and blackmail, as the special committee noted.
  In addition to this egregious behavior in her chambers, the special 
committee also found an equally disturbing act of judicial misconduct: 
making false statements material to the committee's investigation.
  Judge Ross told the Eleventh Circuit's chief judge that she ``never 
engaged in sexual intercourse in [her] office, nor anywhere else in the 
Courthouse'' and that she was ``astounded and confused'' to be accused 
of this misconduct.
  Now, based on the committee's findings, we know that Judge Ross' 
statements to Chief Judge Pryor were patently false. They were 
knowingly false.
  We also know that it took Judge Ross nearly 2 weeks to retract the 
false statements. By the time she finally backtracked, the special 
committee had already collected substantial evidence that proved Judge 
Ross had made false statements.
  In short, once Judge Ross realized where the investigation was going, 
she decided to retract her false statements and admit to the misconduct 
allegations. The Judicial Code of Conduct explicitly prohibits the type 
of conduct that Judge Ross engaged in, specifically Canon 2 states that 
``a Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in 
all Activities.''
  Canon 2A states that ``a judge should act at all times in a manner 
that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of 
the judiciary.''
  Commentary to Canon 2A states:

       Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by 
     irresponsible or improper conduct by judges, including 
     harassment and other inappropriate workplace behavior.

  The committee's findings, which I have just outlined, show that Judge 
Ross blatantly violated all three of these judicial canons.
  Now, I want to be clear, what I have just outlined is all that my 
resolution is asking that the Senate condemn. We are condemning this 
inappropriate sexual misconduct by a sitting Federal judge, and we are 
condemning her subsequent lying about that misconduct. That is it.
  I do want to note for the record that there was misconduct in the 
Eleventh Circuit report that I have not included in the resolution. The 
committee included in its misconduct findings that Judge Ross attended 
a political function for DA Fani Willis. I find it unconscionable for a 
sitting Federal judge to have attended a partisan event with a district 
attorney who weaponized the judicial system in the way that Fani Willis 
did.
  I also firmly believe that Judge Ross, by lying to Chief Judge Pryor 
during the course of the Eleventh Circuit's investigation committed an 
impeachable offense, and I fully support the House's impeachment 
efforts.
  But I have not included those aspects in my resolution that I am 
about to ask unanimous consent for. The reason why? As I mentioned at 
the outset, I believe the Senate should speak with one voice and 
unanimously condemn Judge Ross' conduct. I don't want to give my 
Democrat colleagues any reason to object to this resolution.
  So what I am asking unanimous consent for is simple: a condemnation 
of Judge Ross' sexual misconduct and subsequent lying during the course 
of a judicial investigation.
  The American people deserve Federal judges who uphold the highest 
standards of integrity and professionalism on the bench; not those who 
turn their chambers into a venue for extramarital affairs. There is no 
reason any Member of this body should object to that resolution today.
  Mr. President, with that, as if in legislative session and 
notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed 
to the consideration of S. Res. 808, which is at the desk; I further 
ask that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and 
that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the 
table with no intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, you heard 
her lay out the case of wrongdoing by a judge. I am going to ask for 
the Senate to take action to condemn that conduct. Seems pretty 
straightforward, doesn't it? Turns out, it would be the first time in 
the history of the Senate that we do something like this.
  We asked the Congressional Research Service: Is there any Senate 
precedent for what the Senator from Tennessee is doing? They responded: 
There is no Senate precedent for either introducing or passing a Senate 
resolution condemning a judge's illegal misconduct.
  What? Out of thousands of judges in the United States at the Federal 
level, surely in history, someone has done something wrong that should 
be condemned, but it has never been done.
  Well, it gets down to some basic elements of constitutional law. You 
start with this, the Constitution of the United States. And the 
Constitution of the United States says in article I, section 2, the 
House of Representatives shall have the ``sole power of impeachment''--
removal from office. The sole power of impeachment is in the House of 
Representatives, not the Senate.
  So why is that stopping us from this condemnation? Well, let me 
explain. Under the Constitution, Congress does not respond to judicial 
misconduct in the form of a Senate resolution. It never has.
  It is the responsibility of the House of Representatives, 
specifically the House Judiciary Committee, to investigate the 
allegations of misconduct and consider the next steps, including 
impeachment.
  But here is the critical element: Who is the jury? Where is the 
trial? It is right here. After someone has been impeached in the House 
of Representatives, for example a President, the case comes to the 
Senate for trial. I have sat through at least three of those,

[[Page S4175]]

maybe more. So we are juries; the U.S. Senate is a jury.
  What this Constitution, again, tells us when it comes to the role of 
the Senate: The Senate shall have the sole power to try all 
impeachments. No question about that. If the House impeaches, it is our 
job to decide whether we agree or not. It takes an extraordinary vote 
to impeach.
  And, also, let me be clear, this is critical:

       When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or 
     Affirmation.

  That is a pretty high standard, isn't it? You have to swear that what 
you are doing is constitutional or to the best of your ability. So it 
is an awesome responsibility. We sit like juries in criminal courts and 
civil courts across the United States, and we make bottom-line 
decisions as to whether the House impeachment shall be sustained.
  So the action starts in the House. If they vote to impeach, it comes 
to the Senate. The Senate sits as a jury and decides whether or not the 
impeachment goes through. That is why this resolution needs to be 
defeated.
  Senators serve as jurors in impeachment matters. Passing this 
resolution--passing this resolution, calling on the Senate to condemn 
this judge before there has been any effort at impeachment in the House 
of Representatives--is going to do what they call ``taint the jury.''
  He would have already taken a position on the case as to who is right 
and who is wrong. You can't do that. Voir dire in the courtroom is the 
judge asking the basic question of potential jurors: Do you have any 
prejudice against this case that stops you from finding the truth?
  And people say: I don't. I have an open mind, and I will listen to 
the evidence and the law.
  Well, what the Senator from Tennessee wants us to do is to taint the 
jury, to get us on record before the House has any impeachment 
activity, before we sit as a jury as to how we are going to rule. That 
is why it has never been tried before on the floor of the U.S. Senate.
  I also note the resolution contains multiple material inconsistencies 
on what the Eleventh Circuit found during its investigation of Judge 
Ross' misconduct. This underscores that the Senate has not engaged, 
prior to the election of this resolution, in its own investigation or 
factfinding. The only factfinding we have is from one Senator in 
Tennessee.
  According to the Congressional Research Service, there is no 
precedent for the Senate adopting a resolution condemning alleged 
judicial misconduct. The Senate has never done this before. We should 
not establish a new precedent here, especially when it could taint the 
jury pool if the Senate later considers articles of impeachment, if 
that ever happens. It could also open the door to Senate resolutions 
about other instances of judicial misconduct.
  We must have the highest standards for Federal judges, and the 
alleged conduct in this case is inappropriate, unacceptable, perhaps 
even indefensible. But the Constitution is clear. It is a matter for 
the House to consider at this point rather than the Senate. For these 
reasons, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Barrasso). The objection is heard.
  The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, I think it is clear what Senator 
Durbin is doing today. He is seeking to protect a Democrat-appointed 
judge, appointed under President Obama, and trying to distract from her 
clear misconduct.
  Now, at the Senate Judiciary Committee, we have the responsibility of 
advice and consent. We have the responsibility of oversight.
  And one thing that I will note: I think the Senator has misunderstood 
the resolution. It is not an impeachment resolution. It does not call 
for an impeachment. It explicitly points to the information in the 
Eleventh Circuit's special committee report and pulls directly from 
that report what occurred in Judge Ross' chambers, and therefore there 
needs to be a condemnation of this activity.
  Passing this would have the Senate speak with a unanimous voice 
against this activity, and I would have encouraged my colleagues to 
pass the resolution and to make clear that this conduct falls far 
beneath the high standards we should be holding the Federal judiciary 
to every single day. It is clear the Senate Democrats are not 
interested in that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, we are not judging by this action of 
objecting the conduct of this judge. That is not for us to judge. Under 
the Constitution, it is clear. That will be a decision by the House of 
Representatives and maybe ultimately by the Senate.
  There is a reason why this has never been done on the floor of the 
U.S. Senate, and the Senator from Tennessee ignores that reality. It 
has never been done because it would taint the jury pool if there was 
ever an impeachment action against this judge. That is why I objected.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, before I start, let me offer the 
Presiding Officer my best wishes for a very, very happy birthday. I 
might regale you with singing ``Happy Birthday.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Order.
  (Laughter.)
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. But I have a terrible singing voice, and so I will 
spare the Senate the embarrassment of that particular performance.