Judge Tiffany Foxworth: Stolen Valor, Insurance Fraud, and Removal

Judge Tiffany Foxworth-Roberts was removed from Louisiana’s Nineteenth Judicial District Court by the Louisiana Supreme Court on December 11, 2025, after the court found a “persistent pattern of false information, misrepresentation, and lack of candor.” The ruling ended her tenure in East Baton Rouge Parish’s Division M, barred her from seeking judicial office for at least five years, and ordered her to pay $9,449.83 in investigation costs.¹ The case built on three threads: fabricated military service during her 2020 campaign, misleading statements to Baton Rouge police about a car burglary, and years of resistance to the disciplinary investigation that followed.

The False Military Service Claims

During her 2020 campaign, Foxworth-Roberts presented herself as a decorated combat veteran. Advertisements, signs, speeches, and candidate forums identified her as a “Proud U.S. Army Captain” and a “veteran of Desert Storm, Iraq, and Afghanistan Wars.” One ad said she had “served our country for 13 years in the U.S. Army, as both enlisted soldier and Commissioned Officer.” Campaign materials showed her in Army fatigues and a combat helmet, holding a military rifle.²

Her actual record was different. She served in the U.S. Army Reserve from 2004 to 2010, stateside, as a nurse and medical laboratory assistant. She was honorably discharged at the rank of first lieutenant after being passed over for promotion to captain twice, and was never deployed overseas. Born in 1974, she would have been 16 during Operation Desert Storm in 1991, making service in that conflict impossible.² The Louisiana Supreme Court called the representations “stolen valor.”³

The Car Burglary Report and Insurance Claims

On February 28, 2020, while campaigning, Foxworth-Roberts reported a car burglary to the Baton Rouge Police Department and told the responding officer the break-in happened in her home driveway. Investigators later determined the vehicle had actually been burglarized roughly three miles away and that she had moved it before calling police.⁴

She filed claims with USAA under her homeowner’s policy for items she said were stolen, listing a total replacement value of $38,464.90. USAA paid $24,204.11 in settlement. One listed item, a diamond engagement ring valued at approximately $19,000, had never been reported stolen to police. When the Office of Special Counsel first asked about insurance claims, she denied filing any; she later admitted to the USAA claims but withheld details and gave misleading answers about which policies were involved.² The court found no evidence of actual insurance fraud, and USAA said it was unaware of any fraud by Foxworth-Roberts. She was never charged with any crime related to the police report or the insurance claims.⁵ The evasiveness itself, not fraud, became the problem for the court.¹

Obstruction of the Investigation

The Office of Special Counsel opened its investigation in May 2021 after receiving an anonymous complaint about the military claims. Foxworth-Roberts repeatedly failed to produce her military records and refused to sign authorization forms that would have let investigators obtain them directly. The OSC eventually subpoenaed the U.S. Army, which produced her official service records on April 15, 2024, confirming she had never held the rank of captain, had never deployed overseas, and had been separated from the reserves after failing to promote.²

At an evidentiary hearing on October 3, 2024, the hearing officer found the allegations proven by clear and convincing evidence and concluded that Foxworth-Roberts’s testimony was not credible, describing her explanations as “specious” and “nonsensical.”¹⁶⁷

The justices were unpersuaded. Chief Justice John Weimer questioned why she had not offered truthful explanations earlier. Justice Jay McCallum said, “I haven’t heard a lot of remorse.” Special Counsel Michelle Beaty told the court, “You cannot teach a judge to be honest.”⁷

What the Supreme Court Ordered

In In Re: Judge Tiffany Foxworth-Roberts, No. 2025-O-01127, Chief Justice Weimer wrote for the majority that removal was “the only appropriate sanction” because lesser discipline would undermine the disciplinary process and fail to purge the judiciary of disrepute. The opinion stated: “Those who continuously engage in falsehoods simply should not sit in judgment of others.” The court found that although Foxworth-Roberts had “belatedly acknowledged and apologized for some of her wrongdoing,” those statements “ring hollow in the face of her specious attempts to explain away her actions.”¹

Justice McCallum, joined by Justices Crain and Cole, concurred, writing that after a “diligent search” the judicial canons left “no room for any lesser sanction” and noting that Foxworth-Roberts’s behavior during the investigation was “arguably more egregious than the initial allegations themselves.” Justices Griffin and Guidry filed separate dissents, with Justice Hughes joining Griffin’s dissent.¹

The order carried three consequences:

Disqualification from exercising any judicial functions effective December 11, 2025, with her seat declared vacant.
A prohibition on qualifying as a candidate for judicial office for at least five years, with no return possible until the Supreme Court certifies her as eligible.
Payment of $9,449.83 to reimburse the costs of the investigation and prosecution.¹

What Happens to Her Seat

Foxworth-Roberts’s original term would not have expired until December 2026.⁸⁹¹⁰ No special election to fill the seat permanently has been publicly scheduled, and the available record does not show any further legal challenge from Foxworth-Roberts to her removal.

1
Louisiana Supreme Court. In Re: Judge Tiffany Foxworth-Roberts, No. 2025-O-01127
2
FindLaw. In Re: Judge Tiffany Foxworth-Roberts
3
WBRZ. Louisiana Supreme Court Decides Penalty for East Baton Rouge Judge
4
WAFB. Judge Booted From Bench After Complaints of Stolen Valor, Dishonesty
5
WAFB. Body Cam Videos, Other Evidence Leaves Baton Rouge Judge in Jeopardy
6
WAFB. Tearful Judge Foxworth-Roberts Tells Judiciary Commission She Takes Full Ownership of Her Actions
7
WBRZ. Judicial Commission Says Foxworth-Roberts Could Have Avoided Proposed Removal Had She Been Honest During Probe
8
WBRZ. DA Says Removal of 19th JDC Judge Will Not Negatively Affect Criminal Court
9
19th Judicial District Court. Division M
10
19th Judicial District Court. Court Operations Continue Following Judicial Removal