A sitting federal appeals court judge now faces a criminal charge in California after prosecutors filed a misdemeanor battery count against him, marking a rare instance of a sitting Article III judge being charged with a crime.
Judge Randy Nelson of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit was charged with one count of misdemeanor battery by the Placer County District Attorney's Office, Bloomberg Law reported. The charge stems from an alleged incident that took place in Placer County, California. Nelson was appointed to the Ninth Circuit by President Joe Biden and confirmed by the Senate in 2023.
The charge carries a maximum penalty of up to six months in county jail and a fine of up to $2,000 under California law. Misdemeanor battery in California, defined under Penal Code Section 242, involves the willful and unlawful use of force or violence upon another person.
The Placer County District Attorney's Office filed the single misdemeanor count. Authorities have not publicly confirmed the identity of the alleged victim or the specific circumstances surrounding the incident. The case was assigned to the Placer County Superior Court.
Nelson has not entered a plea as of the most recent reporting. His attorney, Mark Reichel, told Bloomberg Law that the judge "maintains his innocence" and intends to fight the charge. Reichel stated:
"Judge Nelson maintains his innocence and looks forward to his day in court."
The Ninth Circuit declined to comment on the pending criminal matter. A spokesperson for the court told Bloomberg Law that the court was aware of the charge but would not comment further on a matter involving a sitting judge.
Criminal charges against sitting federal judges are extraordinarily uncommon. Article III judges, who include all federal circuit and district court judges, hold lifetime appointments and can only be removed through impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate. A misdemeanor charge does not automatically trigger removal or suspension from the bench.
Nelson continues to hold his seat on the Ninth Circuit. Authorities have not indicated whether the court has taken any internal administrative action, such as reassigning cases or placing him on a reduced caseload. The federal judiciary's internal conduct process operates separately from any criminal proceeding. The case raises questions about how the judiciary handles criminal allegations against its own members, a topic that has drawn increased public attention in recent years as other sitting judges have faced criminal allegations involving violent conduct.
Under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act, any person may file a complaint against a federal judge for conduct "prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts." Investigators have not said whether any such complaint has been filed against Nelson in connection with this charge.
Nelson was nominated by President Biden to fill a vacancy on the Ninth Circuit and was confirmed by the Senate in 2023. Before his elevation to the appeals court, he served as a federal district judge. His confirmation was part of Biden's broader push to reshape the federal judiciary, a priority that drew sharp scrutiny from Republican senators throughout the administration.
The Ninth Circuit, based in San Francisco, is the largest federal appellate court in the country. It covers nine western states and two Pacific territories. The court has long been a flashpoint in legal and political debates, with conservatives frequently criticizing its rulings on immigration, environmental regulation, and criminal justice. The Trump administration's Department of Justice has not been shy about confronting judicial misconduct when it identifies problems on the bench, though this case involves a state-level prosecution rather than a federal disciplinary action.
Nelson's appointment gave Biden another seat on a court that handles a significant share of the federal caseload. His background included work in both private practice and public service before joining the federal bench.
The case will proceed through the Placer County Superior Court system. Nelson will be required to appear for arraignment, where he will enter a formal plea. If convicted, the misdemeanor battery charge could result in up to six months in jail, though sentences for first-time misdemeanor battery convictions in California frequently involve probation, fines, or community service rather than incarceration.
A conviction would not automatically remove Nelson from the bench. Only the congressional impeachment process can strip a sitting Article III judge of a lifetime appointment. Congress has impeached and removed federal judges in the past, but only in cases involving serious criminal conduct or sustained patterns of misconduct. The question of whether a misdemeanor conviction would prompt impeachment proceedings remains open and would likely depend on political dynamics in the House and Senate.
Prosecutors have not disclosed whether additional charges are under consideration. The investigation's scope and whether other witnesses or evidence could surface remain unclear. The Placer County District Attorney's Office has not released further details about the timeline or nature of the alleged battery beyond the single filed count.
The broader question of how misconduct allegations against judges are handled across the federal system continues to draw public interest. Critics on both sides of the aisle have argued that the judiciary's internal disciplinary mechanisms lack transparency and move too slowly when judges face serious accusations.
Federal judges wield enormous power over the lives of ordinary Americans. They decide cases involving criminal sentencing, civil rights, business disputes, and government authority. Public trust in the judiciary depends in part on the expectation that judges themselves follow the law.
A criminal charge against any federal judge sends a signal, but a charge against a judge on one of the most watched appellate courts in the country carries particular weight. The Ninth Circuit's decisions affect tens of millions of people. Its rulings frequently reach the Supreme Court. The judges who sit on that bench face a level of public scrutiny that matches their authority.
Nelson's case will test whether the legal system applies the same standards to those who interpret the law as it does to everyone else. For conservatives who have long argued that the judiciary needs stronger accountability mechanisms, the outcome matters. Cases involving alleged misconduct within the court system tend to erode public confidence when they drag on without resolution or transparency.
The presumption of innocence applies to Judge Nelson just as it applies to any defendant. But the public has every right to watch this case closely and to expect that a federal judge charged with a crime faces the same process, the same scrutiny, and the same consequences as anyone else standing before a judge.
