Florida Judge Under Fire for ‘Chopped Cotton’ Remark

A judge in Florida is facing scrutiny for remarks made during a court hearing that have been deemed racially offensive. Judge John Jordan allegedly asked a Black defendant if she had ever “chopped cotton” while discussing a community service sentence, a comment that has ignited an investigation into his conduct.

An ‘Ill-Considered’ Comment with Deep Roots

The incident occurred during a plea hearing in July 2025. Court documents reveal that Judge Jordan, presiding over the Ninth Judicial Circuit Court in Orange and Osceola counties, inquired about the defendant’s experience with manual labor, specifically asking her great-uncle if he owned land where she could complete her hours. When the comment was met with laughter, Jordan continued, referencing his own family’s farming background and then asking the defendant, “You ever—You ever chopped cotton before? You know what that is?” He proceeded to describe the task, suggesting it would “straighten you up real quick.”

Judge Jordan admitted to the Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission that his comments were “ill-considered” and stated it was the “first and only time” he had ever used such a phrase. He acknowledged that his words were undignified and failed to consider how asking a Black defendant about “chopping cotton” could be interpreted as referencing a demeaning historical stereotype.

Concerns About Judicial Insensitivity

Despite Jordan’s admission, the Commission expressed concern that he “failed to grasp in the moment, or in the days thereafter, how his words clearly were inappropriate.” This incident is not the first time Jordan has faced criticism for his courtroom behavior. Last year, he allegedly scolded public defenders in an unprofessional manner, including telling them to “shut up” during jury selection.

Jordan maintains that he is not racist and does not make rulings based on race. The Commission found no evidence that race influenced his judicial decisions. However, the recommendation for a public reprimand, which must still be sent to the state supreme court, highlights the seriousness of the perceived insensitivity.

This case raises important questions about judicial awareness and the impact of language, especially in a diverse society. While Jordan acknowledges his comments were inappropriate, the ongoing investigation and potential reprimand underscore the need for judges to be mindful of historical context and potential interpretations of their words.