In a twist that intensifies scrutiny on judicial conduct, Judge Thomas L. Ludington of the Eastern District of Michigan finds himself at the center of a judicial misconduct complaint. This development follows a harrowing incident involving a car crash while the judge was reportedly 'super drunk', with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.27, significantly above the legal limit.

The complaint was lodged by Fix the Court, a nonpartisan organization pushing for increased transparency in the federal judiciary. It accuses Judge Ludington of actions that "malign his office and are inconsistent with the high standard of conduct expected of federal judges." The Judicial Council of the Sixth Circuit, tasked with overseeing conduct issues, received the detailed complaint, which includes police reports and witness statements from the October 2025 incident.

According to reports, Ludington was discovered behind the wheel, disoriented and unable to explain why his vehicle's airbags had deployed. Despite identifying himself as a federal judge, he failed multiple field sobriety tests. The incident was kept under wraps until a local newspaper exposed it four months later, raising questions about transparency and accountability.

Fix the Court's filing didn't just highlight the arrest but criticized the delayed reporting of the incident. It pointed out that Ludington continued to preside over new cases until February 2026, all while his criminal case remained pending and undisclosed to the public. This delay, the group argues, undermines public trust and accountability in the judiciary.

The misconduct complaint suggests several potential outcomes, including admonishment under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act, or possibly urging Ludington's retirement under legal statutes, depending on the findings of the Chief Judge and Judicial Council. Additionally, Fix the Court has urged that the investigation should continue even if Ludington opts for retirement amidst the ongoing proceedings.

Adding to the gravity of the situation, Judge Ludington has taken a voluntary leave of absence from the bench pending the resolution of his criminal trial scheduled for May 8. This leave, however, comes with financial implications, as it is a paid leave costing taxpayers an estimated $50,000 or more.

This case not only challenges the personal reputation of Judge Ludington but also casts a long shadow over the judicial standards and ethical expectations of federal judges. The unfolding of this complaint and the subsequent trial will likely be closely watched, as they carry significant implications for judicial transparency and public confidence in the legal system. The broader judiciary's response to this incident will be pivotal in shaping public perception and trust in an institution that relies heavily on both.