The Florida Supreme Court refused to punish a sitting judge who asked a Black man if he ever “chopped cotton” and told public defenders to “shut up” during court proceedings, rejecting a recommended public reprimand in a decision that raises questions about judicial accountability.
Court Blocks Recommended Discipline
Judge John Jordan III of the Ninth Circuit Court faced discipline from the Judicial Qualifications Commission after two separate incidents violated judicial conduct codes. The Florida Supreme Court unanimously rejected the recommended public reprimand Thursday without providing any explanation for the decision. The justices ordered the case returned to a disciplinary hearing panel for final resolution, leaving Jordan’s fate uncertain despite his admitted misconduct.
The Judicial Qualifications Commission documented Jordan’s violations in March filings that detailed his unprofessional behavior toward both defendants and attorneys. Jordan has served on the Ninth Circuit bench since 2011, overseeing cases in Orange and Osceola counties after former Governor Rick Scott appointed him. He ran unopposed in both 2014 and 2020, securing automatic reelection without facing voters’ judgment on his conduct.
Cotton Chopping Comment Shocks Courtroom
During a July 2025 battery case, Jordan asked a Black defendant’s great-uncle whether he owned land where the 33-year-old woman could work off community service hours. The judge then asked, “You ever chopped cotton before? You know what that is? You take a hoe and you knock out the weeds. That’ll straighten you up real quick doing that stuff.” The comment referenced a practice historically associated with slavery and sharecropping in the American South.
Three months earlier in April 2025, Jordan repeatedly told two public defenders to “shut up” when they complained he was rushing them during jury selection. After the attorneys noted his rudeness and moved for a mistrial, Jordan initially refused but then abruptly declared a mistrial himself. “I’m done. I’m not going to deal with this pettiness like this,” Jordan stated before announcing he would assign another judge to handle the case.
Judge Admits Wrongdoing But Faces No Consequence
Court documents show Jordan had no prior disciplinary record before these incidents and admitted his misconduct afterward. He expressed remorse and accepted the Judicial Qualifications Commission’s recommendation for a public reprimand. The commission found his comments violated multiple canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct, including those requiring judges to maintain high standards of conduct and act with patience and dignity toward all courtroom participants. Despite these admissions, the Supreme Court’s rejection of discipline means Jordan continues presiding over cases with his authority intact. Jordan previously served as an Orange County judge starting in 2005 before his circuit court appointment.