FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE NEWS RELEASE #054
FROM: CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
The Opinions handed down on the 11th day of December, 2025 are as follows:
BY Weimer, C.J.:
2025-O-01127 IN RE: JUDGE TIFFANY FOXWORTH-ROBERTS
REMOVAL FROM JUDICIAL OFFICE ORDERED. SEE OPINION.
Hughes, J., dissents for the reasons assigned by Justice Griffin.
Crain, J., concurs for the reasons assigned by Justice McCallum.
McCallum, J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons.
Griffin, J., dissents and assigns reasons.
Guidry, J., dissents and assigns reasons.
Cole, J., additionally concurs for the reasons assigned by Justice McCallum.
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No. 2025-O-01127
IN RE: JUDGE TIFFANY FOXWORTH-ROBERTS
Judiciary Commission of Louisiana
WEIMER, C.J.
This matter arises from the recommendation of the Judiciary Commission of
Louisiana (Commission) that Judge Tiffany Foxworth-Roberts be removed from
office for making false and misleading statements regarding her judicial campaigns;
making false and misleading statements to police investigating the reported burglary
of her car; and withholding information and providing false, incomplete, or
misleading information during the investigation by the Office of Special Counsel
(OSC), as well as in the proceedings before the Commission. After considering the
facts, circumstances, and applicable law, this court adopts the recommendation of
the Commission.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On August 15, 2020, Judge Tiffany Foxworth-Roberts (Respondent) became
a judge on the Nineteenth Judicial District Court, Division M, Parish of East Baton
Rouge, State of Louisiana. On November 3, 2020, she was re-elected to a full term,
which commenced on January 1, 2021.
In May 2021, an anonymous complaint was received by OSC which led to an
investigation. The Notice of Hearing issued by the Commission on February 23,
2024, alleged violations by Respondent of Canons 1, 2(A), 7(A)(9), 7(B)(1), and
7(B)(2) of the Code of Judicial Conduct and La. Const. art. V, § 25(C) for the
following actions:
(1) making false and misleading statements during her judicial campaign
about achieving the rank of captain in the United States Army and misleading
the public to believe she was a combat veteran of Desert Storm and the wars
in Iraq and Afghanistan, when in fact she served stateside as a nurse in the
Army and was honorably discharged at the rank of first lieutenant after twice
not being selected for promotion to captain,
(2) making false and misleading statements to police in the investigation of
the reported burglary of her car while she was out campaigning, but which she
claimed occurred while the car was parked in the driveway of her home, and
(3) withholding information and providing false, incomplete, or misleading
information during the investigation by OSC.
After a hearing on October 3, 2024, proposed findings of facts and conclusions
of law were submitted to the Commission by the Hearing Officer, who concluded
that Respondent
to the voting
public, the Baton Rouge Police Department, her homeowner s insurance company
the truth.
In conjunction with her appearance before the Commission, the allegations in
the Notice of Hearing were found to have been proven by the OSC with clear and
convincing evidence, both in the present proceedings and in the events underlying
it, given that she was dishonest and misleading, failed to disclose or provide
The Commission determined that
the facts, along with its conclusions of law, support discipline and recommended
that Respondent be removed from office without pay and ordered to pay
reimbursement of $9,449.83.
This court now reviews s and conclusions
of law to determine what discipline, if any, should be imposed.
Campaign Representations Regarding Military Service
Respondent made her prior military service the focal point of her judicial
campaigns. She emphasized her qualifications and background in multiple editions
2
of the Central City News, a monthly Baton Rouge community newspaper. All nine
of her advertisements in the Central City News contained a picture of Respondent in
Army fatigues with the caption stating that she was a . Army Captain and
Veteran of Desert Storm, Iraq, and Afghanistan Wars (enlisted as a private E-1 and
rose to Captain). Seven of the nine ads were full-page and highlighted statements
that Respondent served our country for 13 years in the U.S Army, as both enlisted
solider and Commissioned Officer during Desert Storm, Iraq, and Afghanistan
Wars. Additionally, Respondent disseminated a campaign sign which pictured her
wearing Army fatigues, combat helmet, and holding a military rifle next to the
caption . During an in-person candidate forum in February
2020, Respondent informed the audience ... through three wars,
Desert Storm, Iraq, Afghanistan.
Car Burglary Investigation and Insurance Claim
On Friday, February 28, 2020, after she had been campaigning door-to-door
in the Sherwood Forest area of Baton Rouge, Respondent reported an alleged car
burglary.1 Before contacting the police, she moved her car to the driveway of her
Sherwood Oaks home, about three miles away from the burglary scene. When her
husband arrived, Respondent called 911 to report the burglary. When the 911
operator asked, Respondent gave her home address and did
not mention that the car burglary happened at a different location; nor did she
mention that she moved her car after the burglary took place.
In response to the 911 call, a Baton Rouge Police Department officer was
dispatched to Respondent s home. Body camera footage showed that on his arrival,
Respondent greeted the officer and stated,
car in her driveway.
1
Although the Commission found no evidence of fraud in connection with the reports made by Respondent in connection with the alleged car burglary, Respondent ever-changing accounts of the incident and her lack of candor in this regard are disconcerting.
3
She then gestured to her husband, whose car was parked behind hers in the driveway,
W She then pointed back
car had been ransacked.
The officer asked Respondent when she last saw her car untouched and when
she noticed the door was open, so that he could go around the neighborhood to ask
if anyone had cameras that may have recorded something. Respondent gave an
approximate time frame but made no effort to clarify that the burglary occurred
several miles away. At the end of the encounter, the officer gave Respondent a
victim assistance card with his name and badge number, which he explained stated
type is a vehicle burglary, and ... the incident
address is Respondent did not correct the officer about where the
burglary occurred.
The initial police report reflects that Respondent reported the following items
missing from her car: a makeup bag containing $400 in cash and approximately $500
worth of makeup; an Yves St. Laurent purse containing credit cards, her
identification, medication, and $3,000 in cash; and an Apple MacBook computer.
On Monday, March 2, 2020, Respondent reported to the police additional items that
she realized were missing from her car, including a Rolex watch, two bracelets, her
passport, and one Gucci shoe. Although Respondent subsequently reported to her
insurance company that a third bracelet and her diamond engagement ring were also
taken from her car during the burglary, Respondent never reported to the police that
her ring had been stolen. In total, the replacement cost value of all stolen items in a
claim made by Respondent with USAA ( ) was $38,464.90.2
2
When Respondent first called USAA to report the loss, she did not tell the insurer where the burglary occurred or that she had relocated the car before calling the police. Nothing in the claims file indicates that Respondent at any point during the claims process told USAA that the burglary occurred away from her home and that she moved the car to her home afterwards.
4
In settlement of her claim, USAA paid Respondent $24,204.11 (actual cash value
less deductible).
Commission Investigation
Relative to campaign representations about her military service, by a letter
dated June 1, 2023, OSC requested complete copies of her military records.
Receiving no response, OSC served counsel with a subpoena duces
tecum on July 6, 2023, to which she responded on August 7, 2023, claiming she did
not have the military records in her possession and was not the custodian of the
records. On August 24, 2023, OSC sent Respondent a Request Pertaining to Miliary
Records form for her signature, authorizing the government to release her military
records to OSC. Having received no response, OSC sent additional requests on
October 25, 2023, and November 6, 2023, for the military records or the executed
authorization form. After still receiving no response, OSC submitted unsigned
documents directly to the government on January 9, 2024. The Army complied with
the request on April 15, 2024, by sending copies of military records.
Relative to the car burglary, OSC received initial response to
the allegations contained in the complaint in which she unequivocally asserted that
crime
her State Farm auto policy and list of claims. Respondent further stated that she
not submit any information--much less any false information--to her insurance
carrier after the February 2020 incident. Because her response was silent as to any
policy with or claims made to USAA (the insurer specifically mentioned in the
complaint), OSC requested clarification of the claim history regarding USAA. A
supplemental response filed on November 8, 2021, in which she acknowledged that
ed there was a r initial
response, in that the word auto was inadvertently omitted from in front of the
5
word insurance. The Commission noted that even with the correction, the initial
response would not have been fully responsive to the inquiry about her insurance
claims because the complaint specifically named USAA. Instead, the initial
response appeared designed to cloud the issue and divert attention to the lack of
claims with State Farm.
had made a claim with USAA was found to not be credible. She testified that she
believed the anonymous complaint against her arose when a campaign worker, who
later became disgruntled and left her campaign, heard her tell the police that her
insurance was with State Farm and she then filed a claim with USAA. The
Commission found this explanation is nonsensical as it did not reasonably explain
why Respondent would think it relevant to disclose only that she did not make any
claims with her auto insurer, State Farm, rather than disclosing the claims she did
After the Commission notified Respondent of its investigation into the
allegations that she filed a false police report, fraudulent insurance claim, and
misrepresented the circumstances of the car burglary, she sent a second supplemental
response to OSC on March 9, 2022, wherein, among other things, she provided a
letter from USAA with a claim number. OSC then subpoenaed USAA file
associated with that claim number. Many months later, OSC verbally learned from
USAA that the claim number in question pertained solely to the diamond
engagement ring, which had not been included in the police report and that all other
stolen property was claimed under a different USAA policy and claim number. On
learning for the first time that a ring had been reported stolen to USAA and was the
subject of an insurance claim, as well as learning there was a second claim related
to the burglary, OSC issued a new subpoena for the other claim number. The
Commission was troubled by initial failure to disclose the USAA
6
claim in response to allegations of potential insurance fraud, as well as her claim for
the ring, which had not been reported to the police as stolen.
testimony surrounding the insurance claim for the ring was
found by the Commission to have further diminished her overall credibility. When
asked at the hearing why she had only disclosed one claim number after being
claim,
homeowner s policy issued to her husband. The documentation eventually provided
by USAA directly contradicted her testimony, showing that Respondent inquired
homeowner s policy.
According to its representative, USAA was not aware of any evidence of fraud
or attempted fraud by Respondent. Although the Commission did not find any
evidence of fraud, evasiveness and failure to be
forthcoming with OSC about the facts surrounding her insurance claims after the car
burglary raised legitimate concerns and could stem from an initial mistaken belief
that her losses would only be covered if the burglary occurred right outside of her
house. The Commission further found that lack of forthrightness
investigation.
Like the Hearing Officer, the Commission found that the record demonstrates
that the lack of candor demonstrated by Respondent in her judicial campaigns, in the
handling of her car burglary incident, and with the Commission violated Canons 1,
2(A), 7(A)(9), 7(B)(1), and 7(B)(2) of the Code of Judicial Conduct, as well as La.
Const. art. V, § 25(C). Given the totality of the misconduct that the Commission
found to be proven by clear and convincing evidence, the Commission
recommended that Respondent be removed from office to protect the public and its
7
confidence in the integrity of the judiciary and to purge the judiciary of any taint of
disrepute.
DISCUSSION
The sole issue presented is whether this court should accept the
recommendation that Respondent be removed from office. Article V, Section 25(C)
of the Louisiana Constitution vests this court with exclusive and original jurisdiction
in judicial disciplinary proceedings and provides substantive grounds for
disciplinary actions against a judge. The court has adopted the Code of Judicial
Conduct, which supplements the grounds for disciplinary actions on judges. Before
discipline can be imposed, charges against a judge must be proven by clear and
convincing evidence. In re Hunter, 02-1975, p. 3 (La. 8/19/02), 823 So.2d 325,
328.
Campaign Representations Regarding Military Service
The Commission found that the statements regarding military
service were false and misleading in several ways. Respondent did not serve in any
capacity during Operation Desert Storm, which took place in 1991, when she was
only 16 years old. Her entire military service was stateside. Her claim that she was
a veteran of three wars gave the false impression that she served in combat areas
overseas. She did not. Her claim that she obtained the rank of captain in the Army
was also false and misleading. It was discovered that Respondent separated from
the U.S. Army Reserve being twice non-selected for promotion to the
July 31, 2010.3
3
Respondent testified that she requested to be discharged from the Army on her own accord and
Commission found this testimony is not supported by the record and is directly contradicted by documents produced by the Army.
8
Respondent argued that the campaign ads in the Central City News contained
statements which she did not write, authorize, or see (specifically that she was a
given to the owner/editor of the Central City News. According to Respondent, there
was no discussion or negotiation between herself and the owner/editor about the
content of the ads and that she never once saw the ads, despite paying $7,550 to run
nine ads over two election campaigns. Respondent ultimately acknowledged that
she is responsible for the ads, although she attributed her lack of oversight in this
regard to the COVID
The anonymous complaint submitted to the Commission included
photographs of campaign sign in which she was holding a rifle and
. While Respondent later
acknowledged that she received the photograph with the complaint in May 2021, she
asserted, for the first time at the October 2024 hearing before the Hearing Officer,
that the photograph had . However, she
failed to provide any plausible explanation as to why she had not raised this issue
after OSC first sent it to her. The Commission stated that it did not make sense that
an anonymous complainant would try to alter a photograph of the sign and not allege
in the narrative portion of the complaint that Respondent lied about her rank.4
Moreover, in April 2023, in a sworn statement to OSC, Respondent affirmed under
She later admitted at the hearing
The Commission did not
find this testimony to be credible given that a reasonable judge should know how to
answer questions honestly under oath.
4
rank insignia; however, she never contended the insignia was added when the photo was submitted as part of the complaint. Notably, the anonymous complaint did not allege the ads were false or contained false information, but rather claimed the ads violated Department of Defense directives.
9
The Commission did not find details about her service when
testifying credible because she gave the false impression that she served in combat
areas overseas when she referred to herself as a veteran of Desert Storm and the wars
in Iraq and Afghanistan. The military records revealed that her service included
duties as a medical laboratory assistant and nurse, which are both commendable.
However, she would not reasonably be considered a war veteran. A 2020 video
advertisement revealed that she was featured wearing an Army patrol hat and
interacting with Army reservists dressed in fatigues. The video narration stated that
gave the false impression that she served in a capacity other than a nurse or medical
laboratory technician stateside. The Commission did not understand why she would
intentionally lie or misrepresent herself in this light instead of lauding her actual
accomplishments. The Commission stated
R failure to engage in proper oversight of her campaign ads is a
violation of Judicial Canon 7. Further, the statements provided by Respondent were
not mere exaggerations or misunderstandings. They involved repeated assertions
about her rank, service, and participation in military operations in which she did not
participate. The material used in the campaign had specific language and imagery
designed to create the impression of combat service, despite her military service
being stateside. This court, therefore, agrees with the Commission that
misrepresentation was intentional and warrants discipline.
Car Burglary Investigation and Insurance Claim
The Commission found that Respondent engaged in a continued pattern of
misleading information related to the investigation of her car burglary and the
accompanying insurance claim. Respondent claimed that she knew at the time that
her property loss would be covered by insurance regardless of the location of the
10
burglary. However, the Commission stated that the insurance coverage appeared to
be the only reason she would purposefully not be forthcoming with the relevant
information as to where the car burglary occurred.
During the ongoing investigation, Respondent stated under oath that she did
not recall what she specifically said in the 911 call with the operator nor remember
her exact conversation with the investigating officer. She stated that she did not
of the
incident. She claimed that she did not intend to convey that her car was parked in
her driveway when the incident occurred. The Commission found her testimony not
to be credible and concluded that Respondent intentionally misled the investigating
police officer. Her July 15, 2021, response
not submit an
State Farm auto insurance policy information. Since the complaint referenced
USAA, OSC requested clarification. She later submitted a supplemental response on
November 8, 2021, which acknowledged a homeowners claim with USAA, calling
before the word
The Commission stated this would not have been fully responsive
because the inquiry was not exclusively limited to auto insurance but rather asked
about the details of the car burglary and insurance claim.
The Commission found her initial failure to disclose the USAA claim not
credible. Respondent stated that a campaign worker heard her tell the police that her
insurance was with State Farm, but the Commission found that this did not make
sense because she did not provide this explanation but only provided information on
the lack of such claim with State Farm. The Commission notified her about the
investigation of the police report and insurance fraud allegations. At that point,
Respondent submitted a supplemental response providing her USAA claim number.
It was revealed through a subpoena issued to USAA that the claim number provided
11
was linked to the diamond ring that she had not reported to the police, as well as
other stolen property that was claimed under a separate USAA insurance policy with
a separate claim number. The Commission issued another subpoena for the
complete claim file under the second insurance policy. Respondent testimony
stating that she only made one insurance claim and that USAA, itself, opened a
second claim, was contradicted by the USAA record noting that she inquired many
times about the filing of separate claims. Although fraud was not found in this
matter, the lack of transparency, evasiveness, and lack of candor caused unnecessary
This pattern of misrepresentation continued when Respondent had the
opportunity to rectify her false statements but failed to do so. Instead, she
contradicted many of her explanations proffered to the Commission. This court
finds these inconsistences reveal a lack of candor. Instead of offering clarification,
additional conflicting rationalizations exposed dishonesty.
Commission Investigation
The Commission found Respondent s
to obtain documents reflecting her military service, which hindered and delayed the
investigation of this matter. The Commission found that her explanations for failing
to cooperate with OSC in obtaining her military records, either by directly providing
the records or signing an authorization form for their release, were not credible.
Respondent claimed that she decided not to release her prior military records
for the investigation because she suffered various traumas during her military
service. She did not disclose this information in the initial investigation. At the
outset she stated that she believed OSC inquired about the military records to
confirm her age during Desert Storm. This explanation first appeared in her May
2024 response but was not supported by the record. No OSC letter ever indicated
that the inquiry about the records was made to confirm her age. OSC had previously
12
Furthermore, Respondent never mentioned to OSC that she was reluctant to produce
her military records due to privacy concerns. She also failed to produce any
documents supporting her allegations regarding the traumas
discovery requests. The Commission concluded she intentionally did not cooperate
with its investigation to conceal information in her military records.
As discussed previously in this opinion, the Commission further found her
pattern of misleading information extended to the investigation of the car burglary
and subsequent insurance claim. Her initial failure to disclose the USAA claim, her
misleading statements regarding the location of the burglary, her failure to mention
the additional insurance claim, and her contradictory explanations all indicated that
she withheld information or provided inaccurate information.
The Commission sent Respondent several requests and gave her ample time
to respond to each request properly. refusal to be forthcoming with
the authorization of her military records and only offering an explanation after much
delay resulted in a hinderance of the proceedings. Her response regarding all the
USAA insurance claims lacked candor as well. Respondent should have disclosed
the USAA claims, but she provided only one claim number when the record indicates
more than one was opened.
For these reasons, judicial discipline is warranted in this matter, as the
evidence reveals a persistent pattern of false information, misrepresentation, and
lack of candor over the course of several years. Respondent violated Canons 1, 2(A),
7(A)(9), 7(B)(1), and 7(B)(2) of the Code of Judicial Conduct5 and La. Const. art.
V, § 25(C).
5
Canon 1 provides that a judge shall uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary. Cannon 2(A) states that [a] judge shall respect and comply with the law and shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. Canon 7(A)(9) provides that a judge or judicial candidate shall not knowingly make, or cause to be made, a false statement concerning the identity, qualifications, present position, or other fact
13
Discipline
The Commission has recommended that Respondent be removed from
In imposing discipline, this court is guided by the following: (a) whether the
misconduct is an isolated instance or an evidenced pattern of misconduct; (b) the
nature, extent, and frequency of occurrence of the acts of the misconduct; (c) whether
the misconduct occurred in or out of the courtroom; (d) whether the misconduct
; (e) whether the judge
has acknowledged or recognized that these acts occurred; (f) whether the judge has
evidenced an effort to change or modify his/her conduct; (g) the length of service on
the bench; (h) whether there have been prior complaints about this judge; (i) the
effect the misconduct has on the integrity of and respect for the judiciary; and (j) the
extent to which the judge exploited his position to satisfy his personal desires. In re
Chaisson, 549 So.2d 259, 266 (La. 1989).
(a) Is the misconduct an isolated instance or does it evidence a pattern of misconduct and (b) what is the nature, extent, and frequency of the acts of misconduct?
misconduct is serious and was not isolated. She displayed a
pattern of dishonesty. The misconduct began during her judicial campaigns in 2020,
but she continued to lie and mislead the Commission throughout the investigation
and proceedings, which her lack of candor unnecessarily obstructed and delayed.
The nature of misconduct is the most problematic aspect in that it calls
into question her honesty and integrity--minimum qualifications the public expects
from every judge.
concerning the candidate or an opponent. According to Canon 7(B)(1), a judge or judicial candidate shall maintain the dignity appropriate to judicial office and act in a manner consistent with the impartiality, integrity and independence of the judiciary. Canon 7(B)(2) provides that a judge or judicial candidate shall review and approve the content of all political advertisements produced by the judge or judicial candidate or his or her campaign committee ... before their dissemination.
14
(c) Did the misconduct occur in or out of the courtroom and (d) did the misconduct
The misconduct did not occur in the courtroom nor in R official
capacity as a judge. initial misconduct occurred in her capacity as a
judicial candidate and then continued as an incumbent running for reelection. Her
dishonesty and evasiveness with the Commission occurred in her capacity as a sitting
judge who had an obligation to act with the utmost candor in her dealings with the
Commission.
(e) Has the judge acknowledged or recognized that the acts occurred and (f) has she tried to change or modify her conduct?
Prior to her appearance before the Commission, Respondent acknowledged
she did not
Similarly, she
the police officer responding to the vehicle To the extent Respondent
belatedly acknowledged and apologized for some of her wrongdoing at the later
stages of these proceedings, such proclamations ring hollow in the face of her
specious attempts to explain away her actions or distract from the relevant issues.
While judges are entitled and expected to present defenses and explanations for their
conduct, those of Respondent were not credible, and she has not demonstrated
acknowledgement of or accountability for her misconduct in any meaningful sense.
Like the Commission, this court is concerned that Respondent did not genuinely
acknowledge and understand her misconduct.
15
(g) How long has the judge served on the bench?
Respondent was not yet a judge when she originally misrepresented the nature
and extent of her military service and the circumstances of the car burglary during
her initial campaign. She was a brand-new judge when she repeated the campaign
falsehoods about her military service on immediately running for a full term. She
then continued this pattern of dishonesty with the Commission after it received the
complaint and throughout this proceeding. Although she is still a relatively new
judge, it does not take an experienced jurist to know that honesty is essential to being
a judge. It is also a vital attribute of a nurse, attorney, and Army officer, which were
rior to her election to the bench.
(h) Have there been prior complaints about this judge?
Respondent has no prior judicial complaints.
(i) What effect did the misconduct have on the integrity of and respect for the judiciary?
misconduct constitutes a severe and irreparable impact on the
integrity of and respect for the judiciary.
identity, qualifications or present position are misleading to the public and bring the
In re Cascio, 96-2105, p. 4 (La. 11/25/96), 683 So.2d
1202, 1204. Here, Respondent has gone beyond mere misrepresentation that misled
the public: she created a campaign sign falsely stating that she was an Army captain,
paid for multiple campaign ads that reiterated this untruth, falsely conveyed to voters
that she was a combat veteran of three wars, and lied to the police about where the
burglary of her car occurred, despite the
clarification. She then misled, evaded, and lied to the Commission throughout its
investigation and this proceeding when: she told OSC in her initial response to the
complaint that she made no insurance claim following the burglary; twice lied under
oath at her sworn statement about being an Army captain; refused to provide her
16
military records to prevent discovery of her lies; withheld or provided misleading
information about the police report and her insurance claims; and provided
inconsistent and unbelievable explanations for her actions while under oath before
the Hearing Officer and the Commission.
(j) To what extent did the judge exploit her position to satisfy personal desire?
There is no evidence that Respondent exploited her position as judge to satisfy
her own personal desires.
Concerning the removal of a judge from office, this court in In re Hunter
stated:
Removal of a judge from duly-elected office is undoubtedly the
most severe sanction this court may impose under the authority granted
to us by the constitution. Not only is the judge removed from his or her
present judicial office, but removal also precludes the former judge
from becoming a candidate for judicial office for a minimum of five
years and until his or her eligibility to seek judicial office is certified by
this court. Consequently, we recognize that removal of a duly-elected
member of the judiciary is an extremely serious undertaking that should
choice for service in the judiciary.
On the other hand, the constitution vests in this court the duty to
preserve the integrity of the bench for the benefit of the public by
ensuring that all who don the black robe and serve as ministers of justice
do not engage in public conduct which brings the judicial office into
disrepute. To that end, we have recognized that the primary purpose of
the Code of Judicial Conduct is to protect the public rather than to
discipline judges. Likewise, the objective of a judicial disciplinary
proceeding is not simply to punish an individual judge but to purge the
judiciary of any taint.
We are mindful that the people have a right under our state
constitution to elect to judicial office the man or woman of their
choosing, so long as that individual meets the qualifications required of
him or her to be a candidate. Logically, the people also have the
correlative right to remove an incumbent judge whom they believe to
be unworthy, for whatever reason, of the honor of serving them as a
judge, but they may accomplish that objective only by refusing to reelect him or her when that judge stands for re-election. However, our
state constitution, which the voters adopted on April 20, 1974, provides
for a means of removing a sitting judge from judicial office under
certain prescribed circumstances. The power to remove from office a
sitting judge, and thereby counter the decision of the voters, is most
assuredly an awesome responsibility. But the duty to exercise that
authority has been vested in, and entrusted to, this court by the people
17
of this state through our constitution, and it is an obligation to the
people of this state that we are required to take seriously. ...
Id., 02-1975 at 11-13, 823 So.2d at 333-34 (internal citations, quotations, and
footnote omitted). Moreover, in pertinent part, La. Sup.Ct. Rule XXIII, § 10
provides:
The failure or refusal of a judge to cooperate in an investigation, or the
use of dilatory practices, frivolous or unfounded responses or
arguments, or other uncooperative behavior may be considered by the
Commission in determining whether or not to recommend discipline to
this Court and may bear on the severity of the discipline actually
recommended.
This matter involves a pattern of alleged mistakes, misstatements,
misdirection, and efforts to misguide the investigation. One who is tasked with
separating fact from fiction in a court of law must be trusted to discern the truth.
Believability, honesty, and truthfulness are characteristics that are crucial to serving
as a judge. Trust is among the most essential traits a judge must have; it is only by
being trustworthy that trust can be built.
unforthright disposition toward the Commission during its investigation. See In re
Free, 16-0434, p. 53
As previously indicated, the Hearing Officer
ultimately concluded that Respondent had
statements to the voting public, the Baton Rouge Police Department, her
homeowner s insurance company (USAA), the Judiciary Commission, and OSC
According to the Hearing Officer, R
flagrant and only made the OSC more suspicious, leading it to expend more time
18
Even before this court, no remorse was demonstrated and her excuse for her
their responsibilities.
This matter presents an unfortunate situation. The true story of R
military service is laudable but, as the Commission indicates, her exaggeration
In light of the facts presented in this matter,6 the litigants and the public will
not trust, and will always question, Respondenttrustworthiness. Although reluctant to remove an official elected by the people from
the bench, this court finds that the lack of candor in the campaign, in the reporting
of the burglary incident, and throughout this investigation demonstrates removal
from office is the only appropriate sanction to ensure the trust and integrity of the
system of justice which is, itself, of fundamental importance in the system of
government. Any lesser discipline would undermine the entire judicial discipline
process and diminish the strict obligation of judges to be truthful in the face of an
investigation by the Commission.
While there may be some political appeal to impose a sanction of removal
from the bench only for the balance of her current term, thereby allowing the voting
public to determine her fate, this court cannot engage in making a political decision.
The sanction imposed by this court must reflect an appropriate sanction for the
6
udge) and the Commissioners (comprised
of attorneys, Judges, and citizens who are not Judges or attorneys) observed Respondent testify and found she engaged in intentional deception and obstructive behavior. The Latin phrase falsus in uno, falsus in ominbus was used in common law to state if one testifies untruthfully in one matter, the individual has no credibility at all. Although a discredited doctrine, it remains a rule
way to prevent
, applies in this matter.
19
term.
relinquish our role and defer to a politically driven process. Her lack of candor and
and are deserving of
the forfeiture of her right to engage in the political process for five years. Those
who continuously engage in falsehoods simply should not sit in judgment of others.
DECREE
For the reasons stated herein, it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that
Respondent, Judge Tiffany Foxworth-Roberts of the Nineteenth Judicial District
Court, Division M, Parish of East Baton Rouge, State of Louisiana, be, and is hereby,
removed from office, and that her office be, and is hereby, declared to be vacant.
Further, Respondent is ordered, pursuant to La. Sup.Ct. Rule XXIII, § 26, to refrain
from qualifying as a candidate for judicial office for five years and until certified by
this court as eligible to become a candidate for judicial office. Finally, exercising
the discretion allowed this court by La. Sup.Ct. Rule XXIII, § 22, Respondent is cast
with $9,449.83 for the costs incurred in the investigation and prosecution of her case.
REMOVAL FROM JUDICIAL OFFICE ORDERED.
20
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No. 2025-O-01127
IN RE: JUDGE TIFFANY FOXWORTH-ROBERTS
Judiciary Commission of Louisiana
McCALLUM, J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons.
The disciplinary action this Court has been forced to take is unfortunate
because it should have been unnecessary. First, although diligent search has been
made, our Judicial Canons have left no room for any lesser sanction that would not
deprecate the seriousness of the conduct. Second, as the majority ably explains,
Respondent’s conduct during the investigation has arguably been more egregious
than the initial allegations themselves.
One example of Respondent’s conduct during the investigation is
illustrative. Mr. Louis “Woody” Jenkins, Jr., the editor and publisher of two
newspapers in East Baton Rouge Parish, the Central City News and the St. George
Leader, in testimony this writer deems credible and against his own interest,
admirably took responsibility for the content of his editorial and advertisements
that ran in his publications. Yet, Respondent voided any benefit she could have
received from this testimony by her continued obfuscation and misrepresentation
concerning the very matters about which he testified, and for no apparent reason
other than deception.
Rather than take responsibility for her conduct, Respondent has persisted
with tortured explanations and excuses. Therefore, her conduct has done little, if
anything, to show remorse or contrition. While the current sanction may appear
harsh in juxtaposition with recent judicial disciplinary actions, past actions of the Court should not prevent us from doing what is appropriate now and into the
future.
2
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No. 2025-O-01127
IN RE: JUDGE TIFFANY FOXWORTH-ROBERTS
Judiciary Commission of Louisiana
GRIFFIN, J., dissents and assigns reasons.
I respectfully dissent from the majority’s decision to remove Judge FoxworthRoberts from the judiciary. While I recognize the degree of the conduct at issue, in
my view a suspension without pay for the remainder of her judicial term is more
appropriate.
“[T]he primary purpose of the Code of Judicial Conduct is the protection of
the public rather than to simply discipline judges.” In re Best, 15-2096, p.14 (La
6/29/16), 195 So.2d 460, 468. This Court’s duty is to preserve the integrity of the
judiciary and maintain public confidence. Removal of a judge from duly elected
office is the most severe sanction and should be imposed sparingly as it disrupts the
public’s choice for service in the judiciary. In re Hunter, 02-1975, p.11 (La. 8/19/02),
823 So.2d 325, 333. Removal should be reserved for instances where a judge’s
actions demonstrate a fundamental inability to perform judicial duties or evidence a
persistent pattern of misconduct while in office. Judge Foxworth-Roberts’
misconduct occurred while she was a judicial candidate and continued during her
term in office. It did not, however, occur during court proceedings or in Judge
Foxworth-Roberts’ capacity as a judge.
Judge Foxworth-Roberts has served as a judge since 2020. A suspension for
the remainder of her term without pay is sufficient to reinforce ethical and judicial
compliance. Suspension promotes accountability, the opportunity for rehabilitation, and will allow Judge Foxworth-Roberts to run for re-election such that the voters
may decide her future service in the judiciary.
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No. 2025-O-01127
IN RE: JUDGE TIFFANY FOXWORTH-ROBERTS
Judiciary Commission of Louisiana
GUIDRY, J., dissents and assigns reasons.
I respectfully dissent from the majority’s opinion. Based on her misconduct,
Judge Foxworth-Roberts should not be allowed to complete the remainder of her
current term. We have a constitutional duty to protect the public and preserve the
integrity of the Judiciary and not allowing her to complete her current term fulfills
that responsibility. Beyond that, we must respect the role that the voters play in our
democratic system of government. After all, these judgeships were created by and
exist for the benefit of our citizenry. With an upcoming election around the corner
next year, they have the right to judge for themselves whether she will ever wear a
robe again. I will not disenfranchise our voters and deprive them of that opportunity
to be the judge. I maintain my confidence in our citizenry and respect their right to
ultimately decide who will sit in judgment of their affairs. It is not only paternalistic
and presumptuous but also repugnant to the democratic process to do otherwise.
Therefore, I respectfully dissent from the majority’s opinion.
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No. 2025-O-01127
IN RE: JUDGE TIFFANY FOXWORTH-ROBERTS
Judiciary Commission of Louisiana
Cole, J., additionally concurs for the reasons assigned by McCallum, J.