U.S. District Judge Leslie Abrams Gardner issued a public apology to a former law clerk after a judicial misconduct investigation found that Gardner engaged in a sexual relationship with the clerk and had sex inside her Atlanta chambers with a high-ranking police official, Fox News reported. The apology arrived as House Republicans accelerate their push to impeach Gardner, marking a rare collision between judicial accountability and congressional power.
Gardner, the sister of former Georgia Democratic gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams, addressed the former clerk directly during a session of the Eleventh Circuit Judicial Council. The apology was part of a package of corrective actions ordered by the council after its investigation substantiated multiple allegations of misconduct.
The Eleventh Circuit Judicial Council's investigation determined that Gardner carried on a sexual relationship with a law clerk who worked in her chambers. Federal judiciary workplace rules prohibit romantic or sexual relationships between judges and their clerks, given the inherent power imbalance.
The council also found that Gardner had sex inside her chambers with Darin Schierbaum, then the deputy chief of the Atlanta Police Department and now the department's chief. Staff members in the courthouse reportedly overheard the encounters, which were described as "loud." The finding led to a private reprimand from the judicial council before the matter became public.
Gardner was also found to have made false statements during the investigation. The council determined she was not truthful with investigators examining the misconduct complaints, a finding that has drawn particular scrutiny from lawmakers considering impeachment.
Gardner's apology to the former clerk came during formal proceedings before the Eleventh Circuit Judicial Council. Fox News reported that she expressed regret for the relationship and its impact on the clerk. The specific language of the apology has not been fully disclosed publicly.
The apology did not address the broader pattern of conduct identified in the investigation, including the false statements finding. Critics have questioned whether an apology satisfies the gravity of a federal judge lying to investigators tasked with policing judicial conduct.
Gardner has not resigned from the bench. She continues to hold her lifetime appointment as a U.S. District Judge for the Middle District of Georgia.
House Republicans have moved aggressively to hold Gardner accountable through the constitutional impeachment process, the only mechanism Congress possesses to remove a life-tenured federal judge. The House Judiciary Committee has been examining the Eleventh Circuit's findings as the basis for potential articles of impeachment.
Rep. Jim Jordan, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, has signaled that the false statements finding elevates the matter beyond a personal scandal into a question of judicial fitness. Lying to investigators during an official misconduct inquiry, Jordan and other Republicans have argued, strikes at the integrity of the judiciary's self-policing system. House Republicans formally initiated the impeachment effort after the council's findings became public, framing the case as a test of whether federal judges face real consequences for misconduct.
Impeachment of a federal judge requires a simple majority vote in the House, followed by a trial in the Senate, where a two-thirds vote is needed for removal. Only fifteen federal judges have been impeached by the House in American history, and only eight were convicted and removed by the Senate.
The involvement of Darin Schierbaum added a layer of public interest to the case. At the time of the alleged sexual encounters in Gardner's chambers, Schierbaum served as deputy chief of the Atlanta Police Department. He has since risen to chief of the department.
The relationship between a sitting federal judge and a senior law enforcement official raised questions about potential conflicts of interest, particularly in any cases involving the Atlanta Police Department or related agencies that might come before Gardner's court. Investigators have not publicly confirmed whether any such conflicts materialized in specific cases.
Schierbaum has not been publicly disciplined by the Atlanta Police Department in connection with the matter. The department has not issued public statements addressing the findings.
The misconduct scandal has also triggered action from the Department of Justice. The Trump administration's DOJ moved to disqualify Gardner from presiding over a Georgia election case, arguing that the misconduct findings compromised her ability to adjudicate the matter impartially.
That motion reflected a broader concern about whether Gardner's conduct undermined public confidence in her rulings. Federal judges derive their authority in part from the public's trust that they follow the law and maintain ethical standards both on and off the bench. When that trust fractures, it can cast a shadow over every decision a judge has rendered.
The DOJ's disqualification efforts extended to other litigation as well. In a separate action, the department sought to remove Gardner from a Georgia voter rolls lawsuit, again citing the misconduct allegations as grounds for questioning her impartiality.
Gardner's case is not the only instance of a sitting federal judge facing serious allegations in recent months. Across the country, questions about judicial conduct have surfaced with unusual frequency. A Ninth Circuit judge recently faced a misdemeanor battery charge after an alleged altercation, underscoring that misconduct concerns extend well beyond a single courthouse or circuit.
The Gardner matter, however, stands apart in both scope and consequence. The combination of a sexual relationship with a subordinate clerk, sexual activity in a federal courthouse, and false statements to investigators represents a cluster of findings rarely seen in a single misconduct case.
The Eleventh Circuit Judicial Council's private reprimand, which preceded the public apology, drew criticism from some lawmakers who viewed it as insufficient. Private reprimands carry no enforceable penalty and do not appear on a judge's public record in any meaningful way. For critics, the reprimand illustrated the limits of the judiciary's internal discipline system, a system designed by judges to police other judges.
The House Judiciary Committee's impeachment inquiry remains the most consequential proceeding Gardner faces. If the committee drafts articles of impeachment and the full House votes to impeach, the matter would move to the Senate for trial. That process could take months, and its outcome would depend on whether enough senators, including Democrats, view the misconduct findings as grounds for removal.
Gardner's defenders have not mounted a prominent public campaign on her behalf. The political dynamics are difficult: defending a judge found to have lied to investigators and engaged in sexual misconduct with a subordinate offers little upside for either party.
Authorities have not publicly confirmed whether Gardner faces any criminal exposure related to the false statements finding. Making false statements during a federal investigation can carry criminal penalties under certain circumstances, though the judicial council's misconduct process is distinct from a criminal proceeding.
An apology is a sentence. Impeachment is a verdict. The question now is whether Congress treats the judiciary's internal slap on the wrist as the final word, or whether it exercises the constitutional authority the Founders gave it for exactly this kind of case.
