Judges who drink and drive tend to make the news. See The Wrong Way (April 2026) and A New Miranda Warning (April 2020). There are many examples. By the same token, the world is full of lyrics.
But this morning, I find my head filled with Rick James' Super Freak from 1981 (Gordy):
She's a super freak, super freakShe's super-freaky, yowEverybody singSuper freak, super freak
The song was once a regular on easy-listening and dance-themed radio stations, though its theme is a bit risqué at times. I guess a whole generation grew up with some idea of Mr. James' ideas and proclivities.
But my subject today is similarly superlative; he's a judge who allegedly was a "super drunk," according to UpNorthLive. That refers to a statute passed in 2010. I wonder if that would be a catchy lyric?
He's a super drunk, super drunkHe's super-drunky, yowEverybody singsuper drunk, super drunk
U.S. District Judge Thomas Ludington has "pleaded no contest to ... operating while intoxicated." The results of that plea apparently include the prosecutor dropping the "super drunk" allegation and proceeding on the more basic "drunk" allegations instead. Comments on the news story range from editorial criticism of poor writing to complaints of an appearance of special treatment for Judge Ludington.
The Detroit News notes that this is "a rare conviction for a jurist with a lifetime appointment" and that the 72-year-old jurist "plans to return to his job." The arrest followed an "October 2 car crash in northern Michigan." WOOD TV says this involved striking "two traffic signs and crash(ing) on a rural curved road near his ($2.7 million) vacation home." The judging business may be a bit more lucrative in some quarters than others.
The story explains that Michigan law defines "inebriated" as testing "above .08," and that over .17 is "super drunk." Judge Ludington was allegedly arrested at .27, "more than three times the legal limit." Some might note that 0.27 is more than "inebriated" plus "super drunk," but there is apparently not a degree of impairment above "super" (e.g., "super duper drunk").
According to Police1, "people with levels of 0.20 or into .30 are in danger of blacking out and could require hospitalization." That seems serious. It notes the purpose of the "super drunk" law "was to sideline drunken drivers," with a one-year license suspension, a jail sentence, "higher fines, and mandatory use of an ignition interlock device for a year."
The news stories describe various portions of Judge Ludington's interaction with officers. Police arrived to find him "sitting in the car," and he was unsure "why the airbags deployed." There were apparently unsuccessful attempts at sobriety testing before the arrest was made.
Judge Ludington is a George W. Bush appointee, and the news says he "handles civil and criminal cases at the federal court in Bay City." It adds that the only path for removing a federal judge from office is a congressional impeachment and conviction by the U.S. Senate.
According to the United States Courts, "only 15 federal judges have been impeached, and only eight have been convicted." Over the 250 years this country has existed, with thousands of federal judges in service, eight have been removed from office. The Federal Judicial Center lists them; none appear to involve drunk or "super drunk" driving.
Nonetheless, WOOD TV reported in February 2026 that "a complaint was filed with the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals" regarding Judge Ludington. Among expressed concerns are "how Ludington’s arrest stayed out of the public eye for so long and only took a leave of absence once it came to light." The news notes that this "means taxpayers are on the hook for some $50,000 in paid leave, if not more.”
The reference to "lifetime appointment" is not accurate in law, but perhaps is in fact. The U.S. Courts states "life" on its website: "are appointed for a life term." The constitution actually says "shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour." There is no mention in Article 3 of "life" except in section 2 as regards the punishment of treason. In short, there is no statement of "lifetime" in the constitution.
That said, it seems unlikely that Judge Ludington will be impeached for the allegations publicized recently. The decision of a local judge and prosecutor will likely end this interesting story with a simple "no contest," which is not an admission of guilt but will allow criminal sentencing.
There have been questions regarding the arrest itself, receiving little news coverage until 2026. There may also be questions about why the "inebriated" deal was struck between state officials and the accused, and the "super" dropped.
The U.S. District Court issued a press release in February noting the judge would take a leave of absence, recognizing "the seriousness of this matter," and noting the court "value(s) Judge Ludington as a colleague and friend." It is endearing when one has friends who will stick by them through difficulties.
As regards the complaint that was filed, it is noteworthy that there is a code of judicial conduct for federal judges. It includes admonitions, similar to other such codes, such as a judge should:
- "Maintain and enforce high standards of conduct," Canon 1.
- "Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in All Activities," Canon 2.
- "Respect and comply with the law," Canon 2.
- "Act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity" Canon 2.
The end result of any investigation may require months. The ultimate outcome will have await a later post.
Post Script - Judge Ludington returned to the court system in June 2026 on a charge of probation violation, according to Up North Live. He was also mentioned in a National Public Radio article in June 2026 regarding other instances of alleged judicial shortcomings.
