The Florida Supreme Court unanimously rejected a public reprimand for a judge who asked a Black defendant’s relative if he ever “chopped cotton,” leaving judicial accountability advocates questioning why admitted misconduct resulted in no punishment.
What the Judge Said in Court
Judge John Jordan III faced disciplinary charges stemming from two separate courtroom incidents in 2025. During a July 28 battery case involving a Black female defendant, Jordan asked her great-uncle if he owned land where she could work for 30 hours. The judge then inquired whether the great-uncle had ever “chopped cotton,” explaining it meant taking a hoe and knocking out weeds, adding that it would “straighten you up real quick.” The Judicial Qualifications Commission documented this exchange as violating judicial conduct standards.
A separate April 2025 incident involved Jordan repeatedly telling two public defenders to “shut up” during jury selection after they complained he was rushing them. When the attorneys motioned for a mistrial citing his rude behavior, Jordan initially rejected the request but then abruptly declared a mistrial himself, stating he was done dealing with “this pettiness.”
Supreme Court Blocks Discipline
The Florida Supreme Court’s Thursday ruling provided no explanation for rejecting the recommended public reprimand. The unanimous decision simply sent the matter back to a disciplinary hearing panel for final resolution. The Judicial Qualifications Commission had determined Jordan violated multiple canons of the judicial code of conduct and recommended public reprimand as appropriate discipline. Commission filings noted Jordan had no prior disciplinary record, admitted his misconduct, expressed remorse, and accepted the recommended punishment.
Judge’s Background and Career
Jordan has served on the Ninth Circuit bench covering Orange and Osceola counties since 2011, when former Governor Rick Scott appointed him. He previously served as an Orange County judge starting in 2005. Jordan won reelection automatically in both 2014 and 2020 after running unopposed in those elections. The judicial conduct codes require judges to maintain high standards of decorum and professional behavior in all courtroom interactions, regardless of case type or participants involved.