The Florida supreme court has made a significant decision regarding Ninth Circuit Court Judge John Jordan, who serves in Orange and Osceola counties. The court rejected a recommendation from the Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission (JQC) to publicly reprimand Jordan for remarks made during a plea hearing in July 2026 and for his conduct during a jury selection proceeding in April 2026.
The JQC had proposed a public reprimand after Jordan admitted that his conduct violated the state’s Code of Judicial Conduct. However, the Florida Supreme Court unanimously decided to send the matter back to a disciplinary hearing panel for further resolution without providing a reason for its decision.
The Controversial ‘Chopped Cotton’ Remark
During a plea hearing for a 33-year-old Black female defendant in a felony battery case, Judge Jordan made a remark that has since sparked controversy. While discussing the defendant’s community service requirement, Jordan turned to the defendant and her great-uncle, who is also Black, and asked if they owned any land where the defendant could work.
Jordan then inquired, “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.” Jordan later explained that he comes from a farming background and spent summers working on his relatives’ farm fields in Texas. He claimed this was the first and only time he had ever asked a defendant about chopping cotton.
In his defense, Jordan acknowledged that he failed to consider how his comments could be interpreted in light of the historically demeaning stereotype associating Black people with picking cotton. He denied any racist intent but admitted that his comments were ill-considered.
The Jury Selection Incident
In a separate incident, Jordan’s conduct during jury selection for an aggravated battery case also came under scrutiny. Jordan became impatient with two public defenders, sarcastically asking them, “How much time do you need? Can I get you something to eat? Something to drink?”
When the defenders complained about being rushed and treated unfairly, Jordan ordered them to be quiet three times, saying, “Shut up.” One of the public defenders responded, “That is rude,” to which Jordan repeated his order. The confrontation escalated, with Jordan eventually declaring a mistrial and ending the proceedings.
The public defenders moved for a mistrial and sought to have Jordan disqualified due to his behavior. Jordan immediately denied both motions but ultimately declared a mistrial, citing the pettiness of the situation.
The Implications of the Supreme Court’s Decision
The Florida Supreme Court’s decision to reject the JQC’s recommendation and remand the case for further proceedings has significant implications. The court’s action suggests that the matter requires more thorough examination, potentially leading to stiffer punishment for Judge Jordan.
Jordan has maintained that if the JQC had evidence of his racism, they would have recommended more severe sanctions, up to and including removal from office. The case will now proceed to a disciplinary hearing panel, where further resolution will be sought.
As the legal community watches closely, the outcome of this case will set an important precedent for judicial conduct and the handling of controversial remarks in the courtroom.
