How could it be that none of the Eleventh Circuit Judicial Council members chose to disclose Judge Betsy’s reprimand to the public?
I remain thoroughly baffled by the Eleventh Circuit’s choice to keep Judge Betsy’s reprimand private. (Yes, I know the name, but the label “Judge Betsy” has endured in my memory.)
As I observed in a post I drafted in haste before sunset yesterday, the Council acknowledged a clear conflict of interest, yet they left the public in the dark about which judge bears that conflict. How can litigants assess whether a judge should be disqualified if the identity of the judge is concealed? My suggested rule is straightforward: whenever the Council identifies a definite conflict of interest, the reprimand should be public.
How is it possible that not a single member of the Eleventh Circuit Judicial Council felt compelled to dissent? In fact, the circuit does not even publish the names of the Council members on the memorandum, with the exception of Chief Judge Pryor. I have not been able to locate the current roster of Council members anywhere online. I did find another order dated August 7, 2025 listing the following individuals:
WILLIAM PRYOR, JORDAN, ROSENBAUM, JILL PRYOR, NEWSOM, BRANCH, GRANT, LUCK, LAGOA, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges; ALTONAGA, PROCTOR, HOWARD, GARDNER, BEAVERSTOCK, MARKS, BAKER, and WINSOR, Chief District Judges.*
I recognize that this membership can change from year to year, so I cannot be sure which members are still serving.
I would gladly point to several notable members of the Fifth Circuit who chose a different course.
In May 2024, the Fifth Circuit Judicial Council issued a private reprimand to a judge. The facts were grave:
A law enforcement agency filed a complaint against a United States district court judge. The complaint alleges that the judge disclosed sensitive and confidential information about a law-enforcement public corruption investigation, which the judge learned in a sealed bench conference in a criminal case before him, to a family member. The complainant contends that this information eventually reached the investigation’s target, and that the disclosure enabled the target to attempt to obstruct the investigation, contributing to its early termination. The target of the investigation was later convicted of obstruction of justice and related offenses.
Yet the “subject judge” was not exposed because he was allegedly genuinely remorseful and promised never to repeat the conduct. (Sound familiar?)
In a letter to the Special Committee, the subject judge asserted that he would never knowingly interfere with a law enforcement investigation and acknowledged the risks and consequences of disclosing confidential information about government investigations. He also pledged to avoid such disclosures in the future. The Special Committee found his representations sincere and concluded that his commitment to refrain from future disclosures adequately addressed the concerns raised by the complaint.
Nineteen members of the Judicial Council reviewed this case:
RICHMAN, Chief Judge, ELROD, STEWART, COSTA, WILLETT, HO, DUNCAN, ENGELHARDT, OLDHAM, WILSON, ZAINEY, JACKSON, FOOTE, MILLS, REEVES, KINKEADE, ROSENTHAL, GILSTRAP, and MOSES
But four members dissented and would have disclosed the name of the “subject judge.”
Pursuant to Rule 24(a)(2) of the Rules for Judicial-Conduct and Judicial-Disability Proceedings, it is ordered that the name of the subject judge not be disclosed. Circuit Judges Jennifer W. Elrod, Gregg J. Costa and James C. Ho and District Judge Carlton W. Reeves would publicly disclose the name of the Judge who is the subject of the complaint.
Good for Judges Elrod, Costa, Ho, and Reeves. And for those tracking the numbers, these judges come from quite different ideological backgrounds, yet they all agree on this crucial ethical principle: those who misbehave should face public scrutiny.
Other judges on the Council, whom I know and respect, chose silence. Why?
While we’re on the subject, there’s another issue to raise. It isn’t clear when the original complaint was filed. But the case dragged on for at least two and a half years. A footnote provides this timeline:
The judges named in the caption were members of the Judicial Council when this matter was considered and approved by the Council in November 2021, and they concurred in the decision. Judge Costa resigned from the Court effective August 31, 2022. The Judicial Council terms of Judges Willett, Ho, Duncan, Foote, and Rosenthal expired December 31, 2021.
It took nearly three years to resolve this matter. In the interim, Judge Costa had stepped down from the court, and other members were no longer participating on the Council. I advocate for legislative reform to impose a deadline for settling these issues. The public deserves timely information about misconduct.
