A federal judge has been caught in an extramarital affair with a law enforcement officer, accused of engaging in sexual activity in the judge’s chambers according to a 22-page judicial complaint.
While the gender of the married judge is left out of the complaint, it involves a 11th Circuit jurist and an officer, both of whom were accused of frequently engaging in sexual activity in the office, as heard by clerks. According to the complaint’s summary, the chief judge of the court received information of the extramarital affair with the law enforcement officer in September 2025. The accusations included “having sexual intercourse in the Subject Judge’s office during work hours and within hearing distance of the judge’s clerks.”
The federal judge initially denied the allegations, but a special committee ultimately investigated the complaint and “corroborated the primary allegation regarding the affair and the sexual activity in chambers.” As a result, the federal judge in question admitted to the affair, intercourse, and to attending a partisan event as well, in the light of the broader scope of judicial misconduct.
Per the complaint:
In light of the information gathered during the investigation, including the Subject Judge’s admissions, the special committee finds that the Subject Judge engaged in misconduct by: (1) engaging in the above-described affair and sexual activity in chambers; (2) attending the partisan political event; and (3) making false statements to, among others, Chief Judge Pryor.
The complaint includes explicit and raunchy details, as nearby clerks were subjected with hearing noises consistent with sexual activity in the office. One clerk sat at a desk outside of the office in question and “either saw the officer in chambers or heard sounds consistent with sexual activity”:
Those occasions were: (1) in November or December of 2024, when the judge introduced the officer to Law Clerk A; (2) on January 3, 2025, when the clerk encountered and spoke with the officer in the hallway outside of the chambers and then overheard the judge say to someone on a phone call, “[The clerk] knows [the clerk is] not supposed to be talking to you”; (3) on February 27, 2025, when the clerk heard kissing sounds and other noises consistent with intimate activity; (4) on May 29, 2025, when the clerk heard sounds of moaning and heard the officer say the word “affair”; and (5) on August 27, 2025, when the officer briefly visited chambers around lunchtime. 4 As for corroborating evidence, the Chief District Judge reported that: (1) according to Law Clerk A, at least one other term clerk, identified in the letter, saw and heard similar things; and (2) one of the cushions on a sofa in the Subject Judge’s chambers was stained in a manner that was consistent with being caused by semen.
It detailed other accusations from other clerks as well.
“Law Clerk B, described an incident occurring in either late 2022 or early 2023 when the clerk heard, coming from the judge’s office, sounds of music playing and the judge talking with a visitor. At some point, the conversation stopped, and the clerk could only hear the music. However, Law Clerk B had not seen anyone leave the judge’s office, causing the clerk to conclude that the judge and the visitor might have been engaged in intimate contact,” the complaint reads.
Another law clerk described two times they heard what was described as “unsettling noises coming from the judge’s office.” On one of those occasions, the clerk heard “kissing sounds.” One of the clerks was so disturbed by what they heard, they had to leave the office for the day:
Hearing the Subject Judge engaging in intimate contact in the judge’s office had a significant and negative effect on the above-described clerks. Law Clerk A recalled losing focus at work and being unable to sleep. Law Clerk A was concerned about how the Subject Judge’s conduct, if it came to light publicly, might adversely affect the public’s view of the judiciary. Law Clerk C said that the clerk was made “very uncomfortable” by what the clerk heard coming from the judge’s office. Law Clerk B stated that the clerk was so unsettled by the noises the clerk heard that the clerk had to leave the office for the day.
The judge’s punishment, however, only includes a “private reprimand” and written letters of apology to certain law clerks. The federal judge must also decline to serve as chief judge of the district court and “indefinitely” refrain from serving on Judicial Conference committees.
COMMENTS
Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.