NEW ORLEANS (AP) — The state’s highest court has voted to temporarily remove a Baton Rouge judge from the bench, agreeing with the Judiciary Commission of Louisiana that she poses a threat of “serious harm to the public” if she continues to serve.

The Louisiana Supreme Court’s order Tuesday immediately removes District Judge Eboni Johnson Rose from the 19th Judicial District seat she won in December 2020, pending the outcome of an investigation, The Advocate reported.

The Supreme Court said there was “probable cause that respondent committed a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct and poses a substantial threat of serious harm to the public and the administration of justice.”

The court’s two-page order does not list specific reasons for the disqualification. But Johnson Rose has been under investigation by the commission after receiving allegations of misconduct and issuing questionable decisions including convicting a former Broadmoor Elementary teacher moments after acquitting her in an aggravated assault case and convicting a Baton Rouge police officer of a crime that doesn’t exist.

Johnson Rose is a candidate for a seat on the First Circuit Court of Appeals against Kelly Balfour, a fellow 19th Judicial District judge.

RELATED COVERAGE Louisiana AG asks court to dismiss lawsuit against new Ten Commandments law Periodic flooding hurts Mississippi. But could mitigation there hurt downstream in Louisiana? Ex-Louisiana mayor is arrested and accused of raping minor following abrupt resignation

Neither the state district court nor the Supreme Court immediately responded to questions about whether an ad hoc judge would cover Johnson Rose’s criminal and civil docket following her removal.

Interim judicial disqualifications for judges are rare, the newspaper reported. At least four other district and city court judges in south Louisiana have been temporarily disqualified since 2018, it said.

Justices Jeff Hughes and Piper Griffin dissented in the Supreme Court’s 5-2 decision.

Hughes said Johnson Rose had apologized, and it would have been better to “consider her attempt to improve her judicial performance through a period of probation under the guidance of an experienced and respected mentor.”

“The balance between an appropriate sanction for behavior that deserves a sanction and respect for the choice of the electorate is a difficult one,” Hughes wrote.

Griffin argued that suspending a judge before a Judiciary Commission ruling is “a harsh remedy that must be exercised sparingly as it runs counter to the decision of voters.”

“The actions of the judge in this matter are cause for concern and may ultimately lead to discipline,” Griffin wrote. “However, in my view, they are not so egregious as to warrant the most extreme measures at this point in the Judiciary Commission process.”

Justice Jay McCallum said in a concurring opinion, however, that a harsher punishment was warranted: suspending Johnson Rose without pay and making her pay for a temporary judge to serve while she is out.

“However, because our constitution and Supreme Court rules do not allow us to do otherwise, the taxpayers of this state are forced to bear the double burden of paying Respondent’s salary during her suspension and the cost of a pro tempore judge to serve in her stead,” McCallum wrote.