Illinois Supreme Court Asks Federal Judge to Affirm Authority to Remove Judge for Political Column
Illinois Supreme Court Seeks Federal Ruling on Authority to Remove Judge Over Political Column
The justices on the Democrat-dominated Illinois Supreme Court are asking a federal judge to declare they have constitutional authority to remove a judge from Cook County courts for a political column he wrote when he was not serving.
On April 3, attorneys from the office of Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul filed a motion in Chicago federal court seeking to dismiss a lawsuit filed against the Illinois Supreme Court justices by former Cook County Judge James R. Brown.
The case involves a retired judge who wrote a pro-Trump column and was later removed from a temporary traffic court assignment after the Illinois Supreme Court decided his political commentary made him unsuitable for Cook County courts.
The Timeline
Brown served 18 years as a circuit judge before retiring in 2020. He was brought out of retirement in December 2025 because the Cook County judiciary needed help dealing with a backlog of traffic cases.
Between the time he retired and when he was unretired, Brown wrote an article for the John Kass News website. The column, titled "His Judgment Cometh, and That Right Soon," assailed what he called lawfare waged by Democratic activists and politicians in Illinois against President Donald Trump and his supporters.
He also criticized former Cook County State's Attorney Kim Foxx, whom he called Soros-funded.
The column was published in September — four weeks before Brown applied for the judicial recall.
The Removal
In January 2026, the Illinois Supreme Court decided to retract the assignment amid public pressure campaigns mounted by Chicago Democrat lawyers.
At least two legal organizations issued statements and sent letters to the Illinois Supreme Court demanding the court rescind Brown's appointment. The Cook County Bar Association and the Chicago Council of Lawyers both wrote to Chief Justice P. Scott Neville Jr.
The organizations claimed Brown demonstrated himself to be unfit to hear cases in Cook County due to bias. They asserted the column showed Brown lacked the temperament, judgment, independence, competence, impartiality and respect for the rule of law necessary for those who serve in the judiciary.
The Illinois Supreme Court said Brown's commentary raised questions about his impartiality.
Brown's Lawsuit Claims
In his complaint, Brown asserts the state Supreme Court lacked authority to remove him as it did. He argues the Illinois state constitution alone provides the process for removal of judges through impeachment by the General Assembly or a removal action through the Illinois Courts Commission following investigation of formal misconduct complaints.
Brown said he received neither a hearing nor due process. He noted the Courts Commission received no misconduct complaints against him.
He argues the Illinois Supreme Court exceeded its authority under the state constitution in removing him. By allegedly exceeding their authority, Brown argues the justices should not be afforded judicial immunity for taking such actions.
Brown also accused the state Supreme Court of violating his free speech rights. He argued the removal amounts to unconstitutional retaliation for expressing political views disfavored by Illinois Democrats and perhaps by all seven justices.
The Federal Court Response
In a brief filed in support of the motion, the Illinois Supreme Court justices argue their interests in ensuring Illinois state courts remain free of the appearance of impropriety and bias override the ability of retired judges to exercise First Amendment rights, at least if they expect to land temporary judicial assignments in the future.
They argue federal courts have no jurisdiction over decisions the Illinois Supreme Court may make concerning the rights of Illinois state judges or how they are appointed to the court or removed.
Attorney General Raoul's office argued Brown forfeited his ability to ever again hear cases in Cook County by publishing the pro-Trump column. They assert that even in traffic court, Brown would need to recuse himself from hearing an unmanageable number of cases because either defendants or prosecutors who come before him may be Democratic or among those he criticized in his column.
As for Brown's free speech rights, the attorney general said they are irrelevant because the justices interest in maintaining public confidence in the judiciary outweighs Judge Brown's First Amendment interest.
The Irony
The case features a claim by one judge that the state's high court violated his right to freedom of speech as well as its own disciplinary rules by revoking his reassignment to traffic court because of commentary he wrote as a private citizen.
Observers noted the peculiar nature of one judge suing seven other judges in a lawsuit presided over by another judge.
The cause of this controversy involves Brown's commentary, but its substance is lost among the procedural arguments the attorney general made to dismiss the case for alleged legal failings.
It would be a legal food fight among Illinois black-robed rulers without its day in court.
Sources
- https://www.legalnewsline.com/cook-county-record/il-supreme-court-says-it-can-remove-cook-co-judge-for-pro-trump-column/article_4e1cbdda-c848-4dcb-a00d-12cad923f7c0.html
- https://www.news-gazette.com/opinion/columns/jim-dey-sued-for-rights-violation-illinois-justices-say-they-answer-to-nobody/article_54741763-f3ff-4a3d-95e0-b03fd45fd1cc.html