Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon has filed a motion requesting that U.S. District Judge Eleanor L. Ross, an Obama appointee, recuse herself from the high-stakes federal lawsuit United States v. Raffensperger.
Judge Ross has faced intense criticism after the Eleventh Circuit Judicial Council privately reprimanded her for judicial misconduct in violation of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges. The Judicial Council’s report detailed two distinct elements of misconduct investigated together in a single disciplinary case.
She attended a partisan victory party celebrating Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis’s Democratic primary win in May 2024 — walking through a lobby adorned with campaign signs, drinking martinis at what was effectively a victory celebration, and later showing photos from the event to her staff the next day.
This was not a neutral gathering; it was a celebration for the same prosecutor whose high-profile RICO case against President Trump and 18 co-defendants collapsed amid scandals involving her romantic relationship with special prosecutor Nathan Wade. Willis’s office was ultimately disqualified by Georgia courts, and the charges were dismissed.
Separately, Judge Ross engaged in a two-year extramarital affair with a high-ranking Atlanta Police Department officer (Deputy Chief Kelley Collier), including sexual encounters in her courthouse chambers during business hours that were audible to law clerks and staff. She also initially made false statements to investigators before admitting the conduct, according to Bloomberg Law.
These violations, which undermine the impartiality, integrity, and dignity required by a federal judge’s oath of office, resulted in a private reprimand, the mildest formal sanction short of removal. The judge remains on the bench.
Federal judges are expected to remain strictly non-partisan and to avoid any appearance of political favoritism. “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,” Dhillon argued in the filing.
The lawsuit seeks to compel Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to produce Georgia’s full, unredacted voter registration database to the Department of Justice.
It aims to enforce states’ obligations to maintain accurate voter rolls under the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), the Civil Rights Act of 1960, and related federal laws, essential protections designed to safeguard election accuracy and address vulnerabilities exposed in 2020.
Ross’s attendance at the Willis victory party, given her prior professional relationship with Willis in the Fulton County DA’s office, creates an appearance of impropriety.
This appearance of bias violates 28 U.S.C. § 455, which requires judges to disqualify themselves when their impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
Judge Ross’s documented misconduct, combined with her connection to Willis, whose failed prosecution involved romantic conflicts with the special prosecutor she hired, lavish trips funded by him, and serious ethical lapses, raises serious concerns of partisan influence.
For any judge linked to celebrating Willis’s primary victory to now rule on Trump administration efforts to ensure election integrity creates an untenable conflict.
Georgia remains a central focal point of the 2020 election controversies. Allowing a judge with these documented violations to block or delay critical voter integrity efforts would further erode public trust in the courts and the electoral process.
Complete, unredacted voter registration records are essential for identifying non-citizen voting, removing outdated or inaccurate registrations, and addressing other vulnerabilities that continue to undermine citizen confidence in election integrity.
This motion comes as the Trump administration aggressively advances voter integrity initiatives nationwide, pushing back against years of resistance to fundamental safeguards such as accurate voter roll maintenance. With the June 3 hearing fast approaching, recusal is not optional. When the appearance of bias is this clear, disqualification is essential to upholding judicial neutrality and safeguarding the integrity of our elections.
