A Florida judge is facing a public reprimand after he asked a Black defendant's great-uncle whether he owned land where the court could "have her work it" and then launched into a discussion about chopping cotton during a plea hearing last July.
Judge John Jordan of the Ninth Judicial Circuit Court presided over the hearing on July 28, 2025, involving a 33-year-old Black defendant. While exploring community service options, Jordan turned to the woman's great-uncle and asked a question that court filings now describe as conduct unbecoming of the bench.
"Do you own any land where I could have her work it for 30 hours?"
When the great-uncle responded, Jordan continued:
"You ever—You ever chopped cotton before? You know what that is? You take a hoe and you knock out the weeds. That'll—That'll straighten you up real quick doing that stuff."
He also added, "All my family's farming. They'd love me out there." Florida's Judicial Qualifications Commission was not amused.
According to court filings reviewed by The Independent, Jordan acknowledged that he failed to consider how his comments would land. The Commission's language was pointed:
"In particular, Judge Jordan acknowledges that he failed to consider how his comments, as a judge considering whether to order a black defendant to 'work the land,' immediately followed by a reference to 'chopping cotton,' could have been interpreted (and indeed were interpreted) as inappropriate, especially in light of the historically demeaning stereotype associating black people with picking cotton."
Jordan admitted his comments were "ill-considered." He further conceded that his remarks were "not dignified," could "lessen the public's perception of the judiciary," and could "weaken the public's confidence that the justice being meted out by the judicial branch is based only the facts and the law, and not a person's race", as The Independent reports.
That's a remarkable string of admissions from a sitting judge. And the Commission, while accepting Jordan's stipulation, made clear it wasn't fully satisfied with his level of self-awareness:
"However, the Commission remains concerned that Judge Jordan failed to grasp in the moment, or in the days thereafter, how his words clearly were inappropriate."
Not in the moment. Not in the days after. That's the detail that elevates this from a bad choice of words to a genuine question about judicial temperament.
The cotton remarks weren't the only incident that drew the Commission's attention. In April 2025, three months before the plea hearing, Jordan told two public defenders to "shut up" during jury selection outside the presence of the jury. Court filings described his behavior as having "unprofessionally scolded two public defenders in a manner that was not patient, dignified or courteous."
Two incidents in three months. One involving racially loaded language directed at a defendant, the other involving open contempt for defense attorneys doing their jobs. Together, they paint a picture of a judge whose courtroom manner has drifted well below the standard the public has a right to expect.
Jordan and the Commission have entered into a stipulation recommending a public reprimand. The stipulation still requires approval from the Florida Supreme Court. Jordan's attorney, Thomas Sommerville, offered "no comment" when contacted by The Independent.
Conservatives have long argued that the judiciary must be held to the highest standard of impartiality and professionalism. That argument doesn't bend based on which judge is in the spotlight. A courtroom is the one place in American civic life where every citizen, regardless of background, is supposed to stand before the law as an equal. When a judge's words undermine that promise, even unintentionally, the damage is real.
The Commission stated that it believes the sanction "will serve to deter Judge Jordan's misconduct in the future and serve as an example and reminder to the judiciary about the high standard of courtroom decorum and behavior expected of judges."
A public reprimand is a serious mark on a judicial career, but it is also the lightest formal sanction the Commission can impose. Whether it proves sufficient depends entirely on whether Jordan absorbs the lesson he apparently couldn't grasp on his own for days after he delivered it.
The integrity of the bench doesn't rest on good intentions after the fact. It rests on the words a judge chooses while holding power over someone's life. Jordan's words failed that test.
