Tiffany Foxworth-Roberts: Louisiana Judge Removed for Fabricated Military Record

Tiffany Foxworth-Roberts won a seat on the 19th Judicial District Court in East Baton Rouge Parish in 2020 on a campaign built around her military service. Her ads described her as an Army captain and combat veteran of three wars. None of it was true. An anonymous complaint filed five months after she took office triggered a Judiciary Commission investigation that uncovered fabricated military credentials, a false insurance claim for a $19,000 diamond ring, and repeated lies under oath to investigators. On December 11, 2025, the Louisiana Supreme Court voted 4-3 to remove her from the bench and bar her from seeking judicial office for five years.

This article covers the full record: her background, the specific misconduct, the legal proceedings, the Supreme Court’s ruling, and what the case means for judicial accountability in Louisiana.

At a Glance

Timeline: From Anonymous Complaint to Supreme Court Ruling

1. August 15, 2020 — Foxworth-Roberts wins election to the 19th JDC, Division M
2. November 3, 2020 — Voters re-elect her to a full six-year term
3. January 1, 2021 — Full term begins
4. May 2021 — Anonymous complaint reaches the Office of Special Counsel
5. February 23, 2024 — Commission issues Notice of Hearing alleging violations of five Canons and the Louisiana Constitution
6. October 3, 2024 — Hearing Officer concludes Foxworth-Roberts lied to the public, police, and her insurance company
7. March 31, 2025 — Office of Special Counsel files brief recommending removal
8. May 23, 2025 — Foxworth-Roberts appears tearfully before the Judiciary Commission
9. September 2025 — Judiciary Commission votes 11-2 to recommend removal
10. October 21, 2025 — Louisiana Supreme Court hears oral arguments
11. December 11, 2025 — Supreme Court orders removal in a 4-3 vote

Who Was Tiffany Foxworth-Roberts?

Voters elected Foxworth-Roberts on August 15, 2020, to the 19th Judicial District Court, where she presided over Division M, Civil Sections. She is married to Dr. Jonathan J. Roberts, MD, and has one daughter. Before running for judge, she served in the U.S. Army Reserve and worked as a nurse and attorney.

Her campaign made her military background the central selling point to voters.

Her 2020 Judicial Campaign

Foxworth-Roberts placed nine advertisements in the Central City News, a monthly Baton Rouge community newspaper. Seven of the nine were full-page spreads. Every ad featured a photograph of her in Army fatigues with the caption: “U.S. Army Captain and Veteran of Desert Storm, Iraq, and Afghanistan Wars (enlisted as a private E-1 and rose to Captain).” The ads stated she “served our country for 13 years in the U.S. Army, as both enlisted soldier and Commissioned Officer during Desert Storm, Iraq, and Afghanistan Wars.”

In addition, she distributed a campaign sign showing her wearing Army fatigues, a combat helmet, and holding a military rifle, next to the caption “VOTE JUDGE FOXWORTH.” At a candidate forum in February 2020, she told the audience: “I am no stranger to being on the front lines during the call of duty… through three wars, Desert Storm, Iraq, Afghanistan.”

Woody Jenkins, editor of the Central City News, later said Foxworth-Roberts called him asking for help preparing the ads. “She didn’t have time to work it up, would we prepare the ad for her,” Jenkins recalled. “I don’t know if she ever saw it. It wasn’t one ad — we probably did five or six.” Jenkins said he believed there was “a hidden agenda” behind the investigation and that Foxworth-Roberts was “under attack by liberal people in the judiciary.”

The campaign strategy worked. She won the August 2020 election and secured re-election to a full term in November.

What Her Military Records Actually Showed

The Office of Special Counsel obtained Foxworth-Roberts’ military records directly from the U.S. Army — “without her cooperation,” the brief noted. The records told a different story from the campaign.

Foxworth-Roberts was 16 years old during Operation Desert Storm in 1991. At that age, she had not yet enlisted and could not have served in any capacity during the conflict.

The Misconduct: Three Categories

The Notice of Hearing, issued February 23, 2024, alleged violations of Canons 1, 2(A), 7(A)(9), 7(B)(1), and 7(B)(2) of the Code of Judicial Conduct, and Article V, Section 25(C) of the Louisiana Constitution. Specifically, the allegations fell into three categories.

1. False Military Claims and Stolen Valor

The campaign ads, signs, and speeches formed the primary charge. According to the Special Counsel, the rank of captain “was a central theme of her campaign for a judgeship.” During the proceedings, Commission member John Fitzmorris, Jr. questioned Foxworth-Roberts directly on whether she understood what “stolen valor” means and whether her statements met the definition.

Chief Justice Weimer, writing for the Supreme Court majority, addressed it directly: claiming combat service she did not perform “amounts to ‘stolen valor.'”

2. The Car Burglary and Diamond Ring Insurance Claim

On February 28, 2020, while campaigning, Foxworth-Roberts reported a burglary of her car. She told police the vehicle had been broken into while parked in her driveway. However, the investigation revealed the burglary actually occurred several miles from her home.

Beyond the police report, the Special Counsel accused Foxworth-Roberts of filing a false insurance claim for a $19,000 diamond ring allegedly stolen from the vehicle. According to the brief, she “tried to hide the fact she made a claim and attempted to mislead the OSC regarding what losses she actually claimed.” Specifically, she told investigators she did not file a claim with her auto insurer while failing to disclose she filed one against her homeowner’s policy.

Notably, authorities did not file any criminal charges related to the incident.

3. Obstruction and False Statements During Investigation

The misconduct went beyond the original offenses into how Foxworth-Roberts handled the investigation itself. According to the court opinion, she “withheld information and provided false, incomplete, or misleading information during the investigation by the Office of Special Counsel, as well as in the proceedings before the Commission.”

For example, she lied in her sworn statement to investigators, twice claiming she attained the rank of Captain. She also refused to sign a release for her military records. Meanwhile, she failed to disclose pertinent information about her insurance claim. Ultimately, the OSC had to obtain her records from the Army directly.

“There is a fundamental dishonesty which permeates Judge Foxworth-Roberts’ words and actions throughout every aspect of this case. Such dishonesty simply cannot be allowed to remain a part of Louisiana’s honorable judiciary.”
— Michael Bewers, Assistant Special Counsel

The Judiciary Commission Investigation

The investigation began in May 2021 after an anonymous complaint reached the Office of Special Counsel. From there, it took over three years before the Commission issued a Notice of Hearing in February 2024.

The October 2024 Hearing

At the October 3, 2024, hearing before a Hearing Officer, Foxworth-Roberts acknowledged failures in judgment and admitted to some allegations. At the same time, she argued she should not be removed, saying she had been fair from the bench, had received no complaints from litigants, and had begun working with a mentor judge.

“I could have done better and I can do better,” she told Commission members. “This is not the sum total of who I am.”

Her attorney argued that the judge had not mistreated litigants or manipulated judicial proceedings to benefit her friends. Nevertheless, the Hearing Officer concluded that Foxworth-Roberts had lied to the voting public, the Baton Rouge Police Department, and her homeowner’s insurance company.

The May 2025 Commission Hearing

Foxworth-Roberts appeared before the full Judiciary Commission on May 23, 2025. Tearful throughout, she told the panel she takes “full ownership and accountability” for her actions. She admitted she never served in a combat zone and never served in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Desert Storm, as her campaign ads suggested.

“I could have done better with furnishing more documents promptly,” she said.

The Commission subsequently voted 11-2 to recommend removal, with one member absent. All 13 members present agreed with the investigators’ factual findings.

Special Counsel’s Position

In a brief filed March 31, 2025, the Office of Special Counsel recommended removal. Assistant Special Counsel Michael Bewers wrote that Foxworth-Roberts’ “egregious misconduct, including a severe lack of cooperation, was calculated, deliberate, and in bad faith to further her own self-interests.”

Bewers further characterized the misconduct as a pattern, not an isolated event: “Given the magnitude of the misconduct, and given Judge Foxworth-Roberts’ demonstrated indifference, lack of personal responsibility, and lack of appreciation for the consequences of her actions, the Commission should ultimately conclude that there is no middle ground.”

The Louisiana Supreme Court’s Ruling

The Oral Arguments

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on October 21, 2025. Foxworth-Roberts did not attend but sent attorney Steve Irving to represent her.

Michelle Beaty, special counsel for the Judiciary Commission, told the justices that Foxworth-Roberts “corrupted the process” through dishonesty and showed a pattern of doubling down on lies.

In response, Irving argued that removal was extreme. He said the judge was under stress during the 2020 campaign because her mother was fighting cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic. He also argued that compound questions during the investigation confused her.

Several exchanges during oral arguments stood out:

• Justice Jay McCallum questioned the disparity between Foxworth-Roberts’ punishment and that of Judge Eboni Johnson-Rose, who received a suspension with pay after finding someone guilty of a crime that didn’t exist. “That judge coming out of the same judicial district, I might add, got an 8-month paid vacation; how do we reconcile those two things?” McCallum asked.
• Justice Cade Cole said the cover-up mattered more than the original misconduct: “We’re not talking about a person off the street; this is a lawyer and a judge, and they’re being asked a question twice: ‘You were in the Army and you were a captain?’ I would think any rational person would correct them, knowing that that’s untrue.”
• Justice McCallum also challenged Irving’s argument that Foxworth-Roberts could claim Desert Storm service because she later treated demobilizing troops: “Is it your logical proposition that if a naval or Army surgeon today performed surgery on a Korean War veteran, that he served in the Korean War?”

The Decision

On December 11, 2025, the Louisiana Supreme Court ordered removal from judicial office in a 4-3 vote. Chief Justice John Weimer wrote the majority opinion.

“The nature of the respondent’s misconduct is the most problematic aspect in that it calls into question her honesty and integrity — minimum qualifications the public expects from every judge. 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.”
— Chief Justice John Weimer

The court also barred Foxworth-Roberts from seeking judicial office for five years and ordered her to pay $9,449.83 to cover the cost of the investigation.

Justice McCallum, concurring, wrote that the judicial canons “left no room for any lesser sanction” and that Foxworth-Roberts’ actions during the investigation were worse than the initial allegations.

One detail that could have changed the outcome: the majority included Justice Will Crain, who had been confirmed that week as a federal judge for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Had the justices delayed their vote and Crain not been available, a 3-3 tie would not have been enough for removal.

Before this case, the last time the Louisiana Supreme Court removed a judge was 2009, in a case involving a Jefferson Parish judge found to have been unduly influenced in a personal-injury case.

The Dissent

Justices Hughes, Griffin, and Guidry dissented. Justice Griffin argued that a suspension without pay for the remainder of Foxworth-Roberts’ term — through December 2026 — would have fit the circumstances better. She wrote that the decision “disrupts the public’s choice for service in the judiciary” and noted that none of the allegations involved decisions Foxworth-Roberts made from the bench.

Similarly, Justice Guidry pointed to the Johnson-Rose case as a comparison: that judge acknowledged her mistakes and negotiated her punishment. Foxworth-Roberts did neither.

Official Reactions

The 19th Judicial District Court issued a formal statement through Chief Judge Donald R. Johnson:

“The Nineteenth Judicial District Court respects the ruling of our state’s highest court. Court operations continue as normal. Every case will be heard by a duly assigned judge, and every person who comes before this Court can be assured that their matter will receive the full attention and impartial consideration that justice requires.”

Meanwhile, East Baton Rouge Parish District Attorney Hillar Moore said the removal would not significantly affect the criminal docket because Foxworth-Roberts had already moved off the criminal bench and was handling mainly civil cases. “This is the first time that I’ve ever seen this happen to a judge removed from the bench in Baton Rouge,” Moore said.

The commission’s lawyer summarized the case at oral arguments: “We shouldn’t have to teach a judge to be honest.”

Impact on Active Cases

At the time of her removal, Foxworth-Roberts had one active criminal case: the death penalty prosecution against Michael Wade, arrested in 2019 for allegedly killing three people, including his ex-girlfriend and her grandmother. Before the removal, she had ruled on key evidentiary matters, including that prosecutors could use testimony from younger children connected to the case.

DA Moore confirmed those rulings stand. Going forward, a temporary judge will likely take over the Wade case, though the timeline for trial remains uncertain. Other judges on the 19th JDC — which has 15 elected judges — will receive her civil cases.

Foxworth-Roberts’ term was set to end in December 2026. The Secretary of State has not yet confirmed a special election to fill the vacancy.

What This Case Means for Judicial Accountability

The Foxworth-Roberts case raises a direct question: how do voters verify a candidate’s background before an election? In a judicial race, where name recognition often outweighs policy positions, a compelling military narrative can tip the balance. Voters in East Baton Rouge had no practical way to check her claims in 2020. The truth only surfaced because someone filed an anonymous complaint.

The timeline also deserves attention. The complaint arrived in May 2021, five months after she took office. The Notice of Hearing did not follow until February 2024. The Supreme Court did not rule until December 2025. In total, she served on the bench for over five years before the court removed her. During that time, civil cases were decided by a judge whose claim to public trust had been built on fabrication.

The case further exposed inconsistency in how Louisiana handles judicial misconduct. The gap between Foxworth-Roberts’ removal and Judge Johnson-Rose’s suspension with pay became a central tension during oral arguments. Justice McCallum pushed the Special Counsel on the point directly, suggesting that a lack of cooperation — not the severity of the underlying conduct — drove the harsher punishment.

For voters, the protection against this kind of deception remains limited. Background verification systems for judicial candidates are weak. As a result, the press and public serve as the first and often only line of defense. Foxworth-Roberts’ case is a reminder that credentials presented on a campaign trail deserve scrutiny, not acceptance by default.

FAQs

What did Tiffany Foxworth-Roberts lie about?

She falsely claimed to have served as an Army captain and combat veteran of three wars — Desert Storm, Iraq, and Afghanistan. She was 16 during Desert Storm, never deployed overseas, and received discharge as a First Lieutenant after twice missing promotion. She also misled police about where a car burglary occurred and filed a disputed insurance claim for a $19,000 diamond ring.

Was she removed from the bench?

Yes. The Louisiana Supreme Court voted 4-3 to remove her on December 11, 2025. The court also barred her from seeking judicial office for five years and ordered her to pay $9,449.83.

What court did she serve on?

She served on the 19th Judicial District Court in East Baton Rouge Parish, presiding over Division M, Civil Sections.

Did she serve in the military?

Yes. She served in the Army Reserve as a nurse, reaching the rank of First Lieutenant. She received an honorable discharge in 2010 after twice missing promotion to Captain. She served stateside and never deployed to a combat zone.

What Canons did she violate?

Canons 1, 2(A), 7(A)(9), 7(B)(1), and 7(B)(2) of the Code of Judicial Conduct, and Article V, Section 25(C) of the Louisiana Constitution.

What did the Special Counsel say?

Assistant Special Counsel Michael Bewers called the misconduct “rampant” and driven by “fundamental dishonesty,” writing that Foxworth-Roberts demonstrated “indifference, lack of personal responsibility, and lack of appreciation for the consequences of her actions.”

What happens to her cases now?

Other judges will receive her civil cases. A temporary judge will likely take over her one active criminal case — the Michael Wade death penalty prosecution. All prior rulings stand.

When was the last time Louisiana removed a judge before this?

2009, when the Supreme Court removed a Jefferson Parish judge for being unduly influenced in a personal-injury case.

Conclusion

Tiffany Foxworth-Roberts built a judicial career on a fabricated biography. She ran campaign ads claiming combat service she never performed, told police a burglary happened at her home when it didn’t, and lied under oath to the investigators tasked with holding her accountable. When confronted, she did not come clean. Instead, she compounded the original dishonesty with obstruction.

The Louisiana Supreme Court’s 4-3 decision to remove her sets a clear marker about the baseline expectation for anyone holding judicial power. As Chief Justice Weimer wrote, honesty is “a minimum qualification the public expects from every judge.” As the commission’s lawyer put it, it is something that should not need teaching to someone who already holds the title.

For voters, the lesson is harder. The system did catch the deception — but not before five years of rulings from a judge who obtained her position through fraud. The gap between when misconduct occurs and when accountability arrives is the real vulnerability. Until judicial candidate vetting improves, the responsibility falls on voters, journalists, and the public to question what they are told before they cast a ballot.