Florida Judge Faces Reprimand Over “Chopping Cotton” Remark
A Florida judge is set to receive a public reprimand following two separate incidents last year, including a racially charged remark made to a Black defendant. Judge John Jordan reportedly asked the defendant if she had ever “chopped cotton” during a plea hearing, a comment that has drawn significant criticism and is now under review by Florida’s Judicial Qualifications Commission.
Local news outlets, including News 6 and the Tampa Bay Times, have reported on the court filings detailing the disciplinary proceedings against Judge Jordan. The commission’s findings indicate a pattern of behaviour that falls short of the high standards expected of the judiciary.
The “Chopping Cotton” Incident
The most controversial of the two incidents occurred on July 28, 2025, during a plea hearing. Judge Jordan was discussing a community service sentence with a 33-year-old Black defendant and her great-uncle, who was also present and is Black. According to transcripts included in the court documents, the judge initially inquired about land ownership, asking the great-uncle, “Do you own any land where I could have her work it for 30 hours?”
Following a brief exchange where the great-uncle indicated his family’s farming background, the judge then posed the now-infamous question to the defendant: “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.”
The defendant’s great-uncle reportedly laughed at the judge’s initial question about land.
Judge Jordan has since admitted that his comments were “ill-considered.” He informed the commission that this was the “first and only time he has ever inquired whether a person appearing before him had ever ‘chopped cotton.’”
The court filings highlight the judge’s acknowledgment of how his words could be perceived, stating, “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.”
While Judge Jordan maintains he is not a racist and does not make decisions based on race, the commission expressed concern that he “failed to grasp in the moment, or in the days thereafter, how his words clearly were inappropriate.” The filing further noted his admission that his comments 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.”
Another Incident of Unprofessional Conduct
The Judicial Qualifications Commission also detailed a separate incident that occurred in April 2025. During this event, Judge Jordan was described as having “unprofessionally scolded two public defenders in a manner that that was not patient, dignified or courteous.” This exchange took place during jury selection, but outside the presence of the jury. Court documents indicate that Judge Jordan told the attorneys to “shut up.”
Judge Jordan has admitted that his conduct in both of these instances “violated the high standards required by the Code of Judicial Conduct.”
Recommendation for Public Reprimand
Both Judge Jordan and the Judicial Qualifications Commission have agreed to a stipulation recommending a public reprimand for the judge. The commission believes this sanction will serve as a deterrent to future misconduct by Judge Jordan and will act as a reminder to the broader judiciary about the importance of maintaining courtroom decorum and appropriate behaviour.
This stipulation, however, still requires approval from the Florida Supreme Court, according to reports from News 6.
Judge Jordan’s attorney, Thomas Sommerville, has stated that his client has “no comment” on the matter. The proceedings underscore the ongoing scrutiny of judicial conduct and the commitment to upholding fairness and impartiality within the legal system.
