A federal appeals court judge is now the subject of an ethics inquiry after a parking-lot confrontation in Idaho escalated into a criminal case, drawing renewed attention to standards of conduct within the U.S. judiciary.
Chief Judge Mary Murguia of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has formally initiated a judicial misconduct proceeding against Judge Ryan Nelson following misdemeanor charges filed against him in April. The charges — battery and malicious injury to property — stem from an incident that allegedly unfolded in a parking lot in Idaho Falls.
Nelson, who joined the Ninth Circuit in 2018 after being nominated by President Donald Trump, has denied the allegations. He entered a not-guilty plea in May and is contesting the charges through the legal process.
The case gained wider attention after video footage of the encounter surfaced publicly. The recording appears to capture a heated exchange between Nelson and another man whose truck had parked near the judge’s vehicle. The footage reportedly shows Nelson removing the man’s sunglasses and throwing them before making a motion toward an item the man was holding.
In her order launching the misconduct review, Murguia noted that information about the matter had only recently come to the court’s attention through media reports. While judicial misconduct investigations are generally conducted confidentially, she said disclosure of the complaint was necessary to preserve public confidence in the judiciary’s ability to address allegations involving its own members.
Neither Nelson nor his attorney immediately commented on the initiation of the ethics inquiry. Earlier remarks attributed to the defense characterized the dispute as a personal matter involving damaged sunglasses and argued that it bears no connection to the judge’s official duties.
The court’s action followed a separate complaint submitted by Fix the Court, a judicial reform advocacy group. The organization urged the Ninth Circuit to examine both the judge’s conduct and the timeline surrounding public disclosure of the incident.
Gabe Roth, the group’s founder, argued that the episode raises concerns about judicial temperament and called for disciplinary review under federal judicial conduct rules. He also questioned why details of the confrontation remained out of public view for weeks after it occurred, saying transparency is critical when judges face allegations of misconduct.
The judicial misconduct process will proceed independently from the criminal case, leaving Nelson to confront scrutiny on two fronts as the matter moves forward.
