1

COMMITTEE ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT AND DISABILITY

OF THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES

____________

C.C.D. No. 19-02

____________

IN RE: COMPLAINTS UNDER THE JUDICIAL CONDUCT AND DISABILITY ACT

____________

PROCEEDING IN REVIEW OF THE ORDER

OF THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF THE TENTH CIRCUIT

J.C. No. 10-18-90022

____________

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

____________

(Filed March 3, 2020) 

Present: Judges Anthony J. Scirica, Chair, Sarah Evans Barker, Joel F. Dubina, Joel 

M. Flaum, Thomas F. Hogan, James E. Gritzner, and Jon O. Newman.1

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The Judicial Council of the Tenth Circuit issued an Order on September 30, 2019, finding 

that Judge Carlos Murguia (D. Kansas) committed judicial misconduct by “(1) sexually 

harassing Judiciary employees; (2) engaging in an extramarital sexual relationship with an 

individual who had been convicted of felonies in state court and was then on probation [which 

made him susceptible to extortion]; and (3) demonstrating habitual tardiness for court 

engagements” and publicly reprimanding him for conduct that was prejudicial to the effective 

and expeditious administration of the business of the courts. Jud. Council Order at 2, 3, 7. The

1 See R. 21(c) of the Rules for Judicial-Conduct and Judicial-Disability Proceedings (“Those

members hearing the petition for review should serve in that capacity until final disposition of

the petition, whether or not their term of committee membership has ended.”).
2

matter came before the Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability (JC&D Committee), 

which immediately began its review of and deliberations regarding each of the Tenth Circuit 

Judicial Council’s conclusions, findings, and imposed remedial action, as required under the 

Rules for Judicial-Conduct and Judicial-Disability Proceedings (JC&D Rules).

2

On February 18, 2020, while the JC&D Committee’s review and deliberations were 

ongoing, Judge Murguia submitted a letter to President Donald J. Trump resigning his 

commission as a United States District Judge for the District of Kansas, effective April 1, 2020. 

Because Judge Murguia does not meet the age and length-of-service requirements, his

resignation renders him ineligible for any pension or other retirement benefits. All cases 

previously assigned to Judge Murguia have been reassigned to other judges, and Judge Murguia 

will transition all administrative and case-related responsibilities by April 1.

Based on our statutory review authority, Judge Murguia’s resignation and removal of 

judicial functions require the Committee to conclude the proceedings on the merits. Because

Judge Murguia, sua sponte, set forward the effective date of his resignation to April 1, which 

extends the Committee’s jurisdiction to that date, we think it is important to outline the 

procedural history and process that ultimately led to Judge Murguia’s resignation. Judge 

Murguia’s underlying misconduct, as found by the Tenth Circuit Judicial Council, was serious 

enough to warrant this Committee’s review to determine whether it should recommend a referral 

to Congress for its consideration of impeachment.

2 See JC&D R. 20(f) (“If the complaint was identified under Rule 5 ..., the judicial council must 

transmit the order and memoranda incorporated by reference in the order to the Committee on 

Judicial Conduct and Disability for review in accordance with Rule 21.”).
3

The judicial employees involved in this matter have expressed a desire for confidentiality 

and anonymity throughout the proceedings, which the Tenth Circuit Judicial Council and JC&D 

Committee have made every possible effort to honor.

I.

The underlying misconduct proceedings began in May 2016 when the then-Chief Judge 

of the District of Kansas provided a report to the Chief Judge of the Tenth Circuit regarding 

allegations by one of Judge Murguia’s former judicial employees that Judge Murguia had 

sexually harassed that employee. The reporting judge had learned of the allegations from two 

other judges in the District of Kansas, who had received the information beginning in April 2016 

from judicial employees.

The Circuit Chief Judge promptly conducted an informal investigation in accordance 

with JC&D Rule 53 that included reviewing documentary evidence and confronting Judge 

Murguia. Judge Murguia expressed remorse for his conduct toward the judicial employee who 

had alleged sexual harassment and agreed to participate in assessment and treatment by a 

medical professional, at the recommendation of the Tenth Circuit’s Certified Medical 

Professional. 

Sometime after October 2016, the Tenth Circuit’s Certified Medical Professional 

indicated, based on the facts conveyed by Judge Murguia at that time, that Judge Murguia had 

successfully completed treatment. The Circuit Chief Judge sent Judge Murguia a letter in 

February 2017 saying that there was credible evidence that he had engaged in misconduct, but 

3 “When a [circuit] chief judge has information constituting reasonable grounds for inquiry into 

whether a covered judge has engaged in misconduct ..., the chief judge may conduct an inquiry, 

as he or she deems appropriate, into the accuracy of the information even if no related complaint 

has been filed.” JC&D R. 5(a).
4

that he would not initiate a formal misconduct complaint because of Judge Murguia’s apparent 

honesty in admitting his improper behavior, willingness to correct his behavior, cooperation with 

the Tenth Circuit’s Certified Medical Professional, and successful evaluation and treatment.

In November 2017, the Circuit learned of additional allegations that Judge Murguia had 

engaged in a sexual relationship with a woman who had been convicted of felonies in state court 

and who was, at the time of their relationship, on probation. These allegations called into 

question Judge Murguia’s candor and truthfulness during the Circuit Chief Judge’s previous 

informal investigation. In response to this report, the Circuit hired a retired FBI investigator in

December 2017 to assist with additional investigation into Judge Murguia’s conduct for the 

purposes of determining whether to identify a complaint of judicial misconduct under JC&D 

Rule 5.

As part of their investigation, the retired FBI agent and Circuit Executive Office staff 

interviewed Judge Murguia, Judge Murguia’s then-wife, and several current and former judicial 

employees they believed might have knowledge regarding Judge Murguia’s previously alleged 

sexual harassment and the recent allegations that Judge Murguia had a sexual relationship with a 

woman who had been convicted of state-court felonies. Circuit Executive Office staff and the

retired FBI investigator also reviewed relevant documentation, including telephone records, text

messages, and email communications related to the sexual harassment allegations, and pertinent 

telephone records and materials related to the criminal proceedings of the woman who allegedly 

had a sexual relationship with Judge Murguia. Additional information regarding possible judicial 

misconduct by Judge Murguia, including his sexual harassment of two additional judicial 

employees, came to light during this investigation and showed Judge Murguia’s lack of candor 
5

and truthfulness during the informal investigation, including his lack of candor and truthfulness 

during his evaluation and treatment following the initial allegations.

In August 2018, after Circuit Executive Office staff and the retired FBI investigator 

presented the information they had gathered to the Circuit Chief Judge, he determined there was 

sufficient information to proceed and identified a complaint of judicial misconduct under JC&D 

Rule 5.

4 In September 2018, he appointed a Special Committee to investigate.5 As part of its 

investigation, the Special Committee directed interviews of fourteen former and current staff 

members, mostly in person, including the three judicial employees whom Judge Murguia had 

allegedly sexually harassed, and other relevant witnesses, as well as reviewed documentary 

evidence, including text messages, email communications, and recorded telephone conversations 

and voicemails. On April 23, 2019, the Special Committee held a day-long hearing, at which 

Judge Murguia testified under oath.

The Special Committee issued a thorough, lengthy report to the Tenth Circuit Judicial 

Council in July 2019. The Judicial Council, in turn, issued its Order on September 30, 2019, 

unanimously adopting the Special Committee’s conclusions that Judge Murguia committed 

judicial misconduct by “(1) sexually harassing Judiciary employees; (2) engaging in an 

extramarital sexual relationship with an individual who had been convicted of felonies in state 

court and was then on probation; and (3) demonstrating habitual tardiness for court 

4 “If the evidence of misconduct is clear and convincing and no informal resolution is achieved 

or is feasible, the [circuit] chief judge must identify a complaint.” JC&D R. 5(a).

5 “If some or all of a complaint is not dismissed or concluded, the [circuit] chief judge must 

promptly appoint a special committee to investigate the complaint or any relevant portion of it 

and to make recommendations to the judicial council.” JC&D R. 11(f).
6

engagements.” Jud. Council Order at 2. The Judicial Council also noted “Judge Murguia was less 

than candid with the Special Committee”:

When initially confronted with the allegations, he did not fully disclose the extent 

of his misconduct. He tended to admit to allegations only when confronted with 

supporting documentary evidence. His apologies appeared more tied to his regret 

that his actions were brought to light than an awareness of, and regret for, the 

harm he caused to the individuals involved and to the integrity of his office. 

Id. at 5. Recognizing that “misconduct that rises to this level calls for transparency and a 

powerful disincentive,” the Judicial Council publicly reprimanded Judge Murguia for conduct 

that was prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts 

and publicly admonished him for his violations of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges. 

Id. at 6–7. 

Following issuance of its Order, the Tenth Circuit Judicial Council sent a private letter to 

Judge Murguia on September 30, 2019, containing additional remedial actions not included in 

the public Order. These remedial actions included (1) additional evaluation and treatment under 

the supervision of the Tenth Circuit’s Certified Medical Professional; (2) waiver of 

confidentiality allowing the Circuit Chief Judge, the Tenth Circuit’s Certified Medical 

Professional, and Circuit Executive Office staff to access this evaluation and related records and 

to discuss this evaluation and treatment with the provider; (3) written apologies to the three 

judicial employees he sexually harassed; (4) participation, as practical and appropriate, in all 

court meetings, retreats, and other court activities, as well as court governance and administrative 

activities; (5) semi-annual meetings with the Chief District Judge to review Judge Murguia’s 

work habits, engagement, and performance as a federal judge; (6) prohibition on participation in 

any internship programs or hiring of interns; and (7) advising the Chief District Judge and Chief 

Circuit Judge of any threats of extortion. The Judicial Council also encouraged Judge Murguia to 
7

maintain his mentor relationship with another judge for as long as that judge was willing to serve 

in that role. 

II. 

The JC&D Committee received the September 30, 2019, Tenth Circuit Judicial Council’s 

order and immediately began its review of and deliberations regarding this matter. See JC&D R. 

20(f) (“If the complaint was identified under Rule 5 ... , the judicial council must transmit the 

order and memoranda incorporated by reference in the order to the Committee on Judicial 

Conduct and Disability for review in accordance with Rule 21.”); Commentary on JC&D Rule 

20 (“Because an identified complaint has no ‘complainant’ to petition for review, a judicial 

council’s dispositive order on an identified complaint on which a special committee has been 

appointed must be transmitted to the Committee on Judicial conduct and Disability for review.”).

The JC&D Committee sent Judge Murguia a letter in December 2019 noting that the 

Committee “[would] review each of the Tenth Circuit Judicial Council’s conclusions, findings, 

and imposed remedial action” and noting Judge Murguia could file a written statement with the 

Committee addressing these issues. Judge Murguia submitted a written statement accepting 

responsibility for his “inappropriate conduct” and stating that he had agreed to the various 

requirements noted in the Tenth Circuit’s September 30, 2019, private letter to him.

The JC&D Committee’s focus was whether Judge Murguia “may have engaged in 

conduct which might constitute one or more grounds for impeachment.” See 28 U.S.C. § 

354(b)(2)(A). Among the issues considered by the JC&D Committee were whether the Tenth 

Circuit Judicial Council’s misconduct findings constituted a pattern and practice by Judge 
8

Murguia of judicial misconduct (including by his sexual harassment of three judicial employees;

6

his sexual relationship with a woman who had been convicted of state-court felonies and was 

facing parole revocation; and his habitual tardiness due in part to time spent with these judicial 

employees and engaging in the sexual relationship with the woman convicted of state-court 

felonies);

7 whether Judge Murguia’s failure to cooperate in and lack of truthfulness during the 

misconduct proceedings, which unnecessarily delayed the proceedings and prevented fulsome 

corrective action, constituted additional judicial misconduct; and the Judicial Council’s

conclusion that “[t]he most severe sanction available to the Council in this matter is a public 

reprimand” and “the evidence and facts in this matter [were] insufficient to recommend the 

Judicial Conference refer this matter to Congress for impeachment.” Jud. Council Order at 6 &

n.3.

While we make no additional findings or conclusions here because Judge Murguia’s 

resignation and removal of judicial functions require the Committee to conclude the proceedings 

on the merits, we note the instructive value of providing guidance regarding the statutory 

standard for Congressional referral for consideration of impeachment. In determining whether 

referral for Congressional consideration of impeachment is warranted, a circuit judicial council

6 As noted, this Committee has made every effort to honor the requested confidentiality and 

anonymity of victims and witnesses. We have provided additional details in this Decision that do 

not jeopardize this confidentiality and anonymity, and only to the extent necessary to 

demonstrate fidelity to our review procedures.

7 The Federal Judiciary Workplace Conduct Working Group, formed in response to Chief Justice 

John G. Roberts, Jr.’s call to examine the sufficiency of the safeguards currently in place within 

the Judiciary to protect all court employees from inappropriate conduct in the workplace, 

highlighted that “there are significant ‘power disparities’ between judges and the law clerks and 

other employees who work with them, which may deter a law clerk or employee from 

challenging or reporting objectionable conduct.” Report of the Federal Judiciary Workplace 

Conduct Working Group at 3 (June 1, 2018). 
9

shall certify a matter to the Judicial Conference of the United States when it determines “that a 

judge appointed to hold office during good behavior may have engaged in conduct which might

constitute one or more grounds for impeachment.” 28 U.S.C. § 354(b)(2)(A). The statute does 

not require a circuit judicial council to reach a definitive conclusion as to whether the subject 

judge’s conduct meets the standard for impeachment; that is a determination reserved for 

Congress. Although the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act (JC&D Act) and the JC&D Rules do 

not define what might constitute an impeachable act, the Rules provide helpful guidance. See, 

e.g., JC&D R. 4(a) (defining cognizable misconduct). Notably, there can be variations in the 

frequency and severity of judicial misconduct, see Commentary to JC&D R. 4, and a “pattern 

and practice” of judicial misconduct generally indicates a more severe level of judicial 

misconduct that may warrant consideration of referral for impeachment.8

III.

While the JC&D Committee was preparing its recommendation to the Judicial 

Conference, Judge Murguia submitted a letter to President Donald J. Trump on February 18, 

2020, resigning his commission as a United States District Judge for the District of Kansas, 

effective April 1, 2020. Upon Judge Murguia’s submission of his letter on February 18, all cases 

previously assigned to him were reassigned to other judges. We note that the underlying 

misconduct, as found by the Tenth Circuit Judicial Council, is serious enough to have warranted 

our deliberations over a referral to Congress for its consideration of impeachment. But Judge 

Murguia’s resignation and removal of his judicial functions will terminate this Committee’s

8 See, e.g., Judicial Conference of the United States, Certificate of Consideration of Impeachment 

of Former U.S. District Judge Mark E. Fuller (Sept. 9, 2015); Judicial Conference of the United 

States, Certificate of Consideration of Impeachment of U.S. District Judge Samuel B. Kent (June 

9, 2009).
10

continued jurisdiction over this matter as of April 1, and we are required to conclude the 

proceedings. 

The JC&D Act expressly provides that “intervening events” may terminate the 

Judiciary’s power to adjudicate the merits of a complaint. The JC&D Act states: “After 

expeditiously reviewing a complaint,” the circuit chief judge may “conclude the proceeding if 

the chief judge finds . . . that action on the complaint is no longer necessary because of 

intervening events.” 28 U.S.C. § 352(b)(2); see also JC&D R. 11(e) (explaining action is no 

longer necessary when “intervening events render some or all of the allegations moot or make 

remedial action impossible as to the subject judge”). The JC&D Committee and judicial councils 

have long recognized a judge’s departure from “covered” judicial office to be precisely the kind 

of “intervening event” the JC&D Act and Rules contemplate. See 28 U.S.C. § 351(d)(1) 

(defining “judge” as circuit judge, district judge, bankruptcy judge, or magistrate judge); JC&D 

R. 1(b) (defining “covered judge”). The Third Circuit Judicial Council, for example, has 

specifically held that by including the “intervening events” language in the JC&D Act, Congress 

“codified what has been reported to be the general practice of circuit chief judges to dismiss 

complaints . . . on the ground that a judge had left the bench.” In re Complaint of Judicial 

Misconduct, 10 F.3d 99, 99 (3d Cir. 1993).

Concluding a misconduct proceeding upon a judge’s resignation serves important 

institutional and public interests, including prompting subject judges who have committed 

misconduct to resign their office. Here, the judicial misconduct process included a thorough 

investigation, resulting in findings of judicial misconduct, and layers of institutional review by a 

special committee, a judicial council, and this Committee (involving seventeen judges) that 

prompted Judge Murguia’s resignation, as of April 1, and removal of judicial duties as of 
11

February 18. Judge Murguia has resigned his commission and will no longer be a federal judge

as of April 1.

IV.

Following a lengthy and through investigation, Judge Murguia has resigned his 

commission as a federal judge as of April 1 and will not receive any pension or retirement 

benefits. Because the Act does not apply to a judge who has resigned from a covered judicial 

office, we conclude this matter.