Traffic Judge Can Continue Free Speech Lawsuit After Removal For Conservative Comments
Judge James Brown answered the call to return to service due to a shortage on the bench. Then two left-wing groups got him removed from traffic court for private comments he made when retired.
A conservative judge can continue his free speech lawsuit against the Illinois Supreme Court, according to a federal ruling.
Judge James Brown is suing the state supreme court for removing him from a one-year assignment as a Cook County traffic court judge. The Illinois Supreme Court appointed Brown, a retired judge, to help clear a backlog of cases.
Though he cleared 1,000 cases in just six weeks, he soon found himself removed after two left-wing groups objected to comments he made against transgenderism and in support of Trump, as Legal Insurrection previously reported. The court did not give him an opportunity to defend himself through a formal hearing.
District Court Judge Edmond Chang denied Brown’s request for a preliminary injunction but said his free speech case can continue according to a decision released yesterday.
Judge Chang agreed that “it is plausible for Brown to allege that he was speaking as a private citizen on matters of public concern.”
On one hand, Chang agreed “no record evidence shows, or even hints, that Brown made decisions as to the specific litigants or specific issues before him based on his political views, rather than on the law and facts.”
Yet Chang said the Illinois Supreme Court may have acted reasonably in removing Brown, since it is possible his comments would create the impression of impartiality.
The district court judge pointed to Brown’s agreement to refrain from political commentary while on the bench.
“At the preliminary-injunction hearing, Brown acknowledged that he would not make similar statements to those in the column if he were to be reinstated as a judge because it would be inappropriate to write anything political until after his term was finished,” the ruling stated.
Still, Chang looked critically at Brown’s comments about Kim Foxx, the former top prosecutor for Cook County.
The Liberty Justice Center, which is representing Brown, said the ruling is an important step forward.
“A federal court just confirmed that Judge Brown has viable First Amendment and due-process claims after he was removed from the bench without notice or a hearing,” the legal advocacy group wrote on X.
“The court did not reinstate him today — but it rejected the effort to dismiss his case,” the group wrote. “This fight is far from over.”
A federal court just confirmed that Judge Brown has viable First Amendment and due-process claims after he was removed from the bench without notice or a hearing.
The court did not reinstate him today—but it rejected the effort to dismiss his case. This fight is far from over.… https://t.co/MPFCfWvcDT
— Liberty Justice Center (@LJCenter) June 2, 2026
Brown seeks reinstatement to the bench and damages for the “lost pension value and expenses borne out of returning to the bench only to be wrongfully removed forty-two days later.”
[Featured image from the Liberty Justice Center]
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
“”since it is possible his comments would create the impression of impartiality””
I thought that was part of the job, and then I remembered we’re talking about Democrat rules.
“we’re talking about Democrat rules.”
Democrats don’t believe in rules.
I believe the author meant “impression of partiality.”
Professional authors used to be fluent in English…………..or had proofreaders if they weren’t.
Yeah, that was my point.
Yeah. I caught that, too. In Illinois, being impartial in court is a big no-no. Justice might be served. We can’t allow that.
[I suspect it was a typo, but it was too good to let pass.]
Yeah . Sorry Matt, but this is a lousy piece of work. Redundantly redundant and poorly proofread.
I hope we are not asking too much of you.
So…..when Boasberg went in front of a gathering of federal judges and accused the President of potentially violating court orders, it never happened, that wasn’t a sign of not being impartial. I guess it’s (D)ifferent for them.
(D)emocrat judges actively campaigning for the party whilst in office is acceptable. Republican judges expressing a non-Democrat viewpoint whilst out of office is partiality that precludes them ever holding office.
If the Illinois Supreme Court made the grammatical error, it may be that they are full of KBJ’s on the bench.
Are there things about Illinois that don’t suck, and aren’t corrupt?