The Illusion Of 'Good Behavior' In The U.S. Judiciary
U.S. District Judge's 'Super Drunk' crash ends in sweetheart deal that permits him to avoid admitting guilt. He announces plans to get back to work on the Michigan bench. Perfectly normal, right?
*On 5/13/26, U.S. District Judge Thomas Ludington was placed on six months probation and ordered to pay fines/costs totaling more than $1,000. The court also ordered 93 days in jail, with credit for two days served, but the remaining 91 days are held in abeyance, meaning he will not serve that time unless he violates probation. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is investigating a misconduct complaint filed against Ludington to determine whether disciplinary measures are warranted. Ludington’s hired an ethics lawyer. The Detroit News quoted the director of FixTheCourt, a supposed court reform group, as stating that Ludington should not be impeached for a one-time offense. Meanwhile, there was no word on whether Ludington has a history of drunk driving, or why there was a spent cartridge from a bullet found on the floor of Ludington’s car. Oh, and did Ludington hide his arrest for several months and continue to preside over cases, or did his superiors know about it? Do taxpayers who pay his $249,000 salary have a right to know?
The steaming hypocrisy of the U.S. court system was evident yet again last week when a federal judge in Michigan was allowed to accept a plea deal that could permit him to return to work after a notorious drunk driving incident.
Instead of being held to a higher standard, it appears that U.S. District Judge Thomas Ludington, 72, was held to a lower standard.
Ludington faced 180 days in jail and a one-year license suspension under Michigan’s ”Super Drunk” statute after his black Cadillac crashed into several street signs near his $2.7 million lakefront vacation home on Oct. 3. His blood alcohol content was 0.27 percent.
According to police body camera footage, Ludington denied having anything to drink. When asked to recite part of the alphabet, he said, “A, B, C, D, E, F, U.” When asked to pick a number between 19 and 21, he picked 15. He could not track the officer’s finger movements and had urinated in his pants. He had no memory of the car airbags deploying, or striking the signs. He refused to blow into the breath analyzer.
Despite informing officers that he is a federal judge, Michigan police arrested Ludington.
Last week, Ludington’s attorney, Jonathan Steffy, revealed for the first time that police found a shell casing from a Luger gun on the front floor of Ludington’s car. Steffy offered no explanation, claiming Ludington doesn’t own a gun. Steffy did not explain why Ludington told police, at the scene, that he had lots of weapons in the car.
The DUI charge was not publicly disclosed for four months, and Ludington returned to work as if nothing happened.
Questions arise. Did Ludington notify his employer — the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan — of the DUI charge? Did the Court cover it up? Did police cover it up?
The Detroit News found out about DUI in January, prompting the Court to announce that Ludington would be “voluntarily” taking a paid leave of absence “pending resolution of the state legal matter.” Except for a whistleblower, the incident would likely still be secret.
‘No Contest’
Michigan state court Judge Angela Lasher last week allowed Ludington to enter a plea agreement reducing the charge to a lower level misdemeanor — the same offense that is imposed on standard DUI offenses where the driver has a blood alcohol content from 0.08% to 0.17%.
Ludington pled “no contest” to the lower misdemeanor charge, refusing to acknowledge guilt.
Unless a pre-sentence investigation reveals prior DUI offenses, Ludington faces a maximum sentence of up to 93 days in jail, a $100 to $500 fine, 360 hours of community service, and a 6-month license suspension when he is sentenced on May 13.
Lasher also ordered Ludington to undergo a substance abuse assessment.
After the hearing, Steffy insisted this was Ludington’s first offense and issued the following statement: “Judge Ludington looks forward to continuing to serve the federal court at the highest level and focus on his work, along with his wife and family."
Reservations?
According to published reports, the prosecutor went along with the deal despite expressing a reservation about it at the hearing.
"The recommendation in this case from (Ludington’s attorney) was to, I think, educate himself on alcohol,” said Michael Schuitema, Emmet County prosecutor. “I've never quite seen that recommendation before. It seems inadequate given the BAC and the offense in this case."
Schuitema did not respond to a request for comment Monday about why he agreed to the plea agreement.
Ironically, Schuitema was arrested for an alleged DUI-related offense in 2020 and pled guilty to leaving the scene of a property damage accident. He hit a parked car and left the scene. He then got into a second accident when his car hit some trees. Police called him that night and reported that he slurred his words, claimed he did not know who had his vehicle, and hung up. He didn’t turn himself in until the next day, when he presumably sobered up.
Good Behavior
Article III of the U.S. Constitution states that federal judges "shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour." But what constitutes good behavior? Unfortunately, that term is not defined.
Conveniently, federal judges have interpreted the U.S. Constitution to grant them lifetime tenure, barring impeachment by the U.S. House of Representatives followed by conviction by a two-thirds vote in the Senate. This has proven to be an ironclad job guarantee.
Throughout U.S. history, only eight federal judges have been convicted by the Senate and removed. Interestingly, the first to be removed was John Pickering in 1804. He was charged with intoxication on the bench and making unlawful rulings.
The reality is that federal judges are effectively unaccountable to the public, even for serious, costly and disruptive misbehaviors. Most are allowed to retire with a full pension, which may be the likely scenario in Ludington’s case.
Judges have gotten away with this state of affairs for years because the system is highly decentralized, without a strong governing body, and courts traditionally are highly secretive. In the past, judges were held in high esteem, though this is changing.
The bottom line is that federal judges are responsible for according equal justice to everyone but, apparently, not to themselves.