A sitting Cook County Circuit Judge who posted profane attacks against federal immigration enforcement faces no disciplinary action, while another Illinois judge was removed without due process for a political column he wrote during retirement. The contrast has exposed what critics call selective enforcement of judicial ethics rules in Illinois courts.
Two Judges, Two Different Standards
Cook County Circuit Judge Cynthia Ramirez posted inflammatory language directed at Immigration and Customs Enforcement on social media while serving on the bench. As of now, Illinois bar associations that previously demanded strict enforcement of judicial conduct rules have remained silent. The same organizations successfully pushed for Judge James R. Brown’s immediate removal over a political opinion column he authored before returning to judicial service, arguing it violated standards requiring judges to maintain public confidence in judicial impartiality.
Brown, a retired Cook County judge, wrote a political opinion column before returning to the bench.
The Illinois Supreme Court removed him through a one-sentence order—no notice, no hearing, and no due process.
It later cited Rule 1.2, which requires judges to promote public…
— Liberty Justice Center (@LJCenter) July 23, 2026
Brown, a retired Cook County Circuit Court judge with nearly twenty years of experience, wrote his column during retirement. The Illinois Supreme Court was aware of the column when it appointed him to a temporary judicial assignment. No evidence emerged that Brown failed to follow the law or demonstrated bias in his rulings. Nevertheless, after bar association objections, the Illinois Supreme Court removed him through a one-sentence order without notice, hearing, or opportunity to respond.
Federal Court Questions Illinois Process
Brown filed a federal lawsuit challenging his removal. The federal court declined immediate reinstatement but refused to dismiss his claims, finding he had viable First Amendment and due process arguments. The court noted he was likely to succeed on his procedural due process claim, observing that Brown held a fixed-term appointment with a fixed salary yet was removed without the formal disciplinary process required by Illinois Constitution, which includes investigation, notice, and public hearing.
The federal court described the situation with unusual candor, stating that thorny and unprecedented questions of Illinois state law abound. The court stayed the case to allow Illinois courts to address foundational questions about judicial removal procedures. Brown has now appealed to the Seventh Circuit, arguing he cannot receive fair treatment in a state system controlled by the justices whose actions he challenges.
What This Means
The Ramirez situation tests whether Illinois will apply judicial conduct standards consistently. Critics argue the state enforces a political standard rather than a neutral one, treating speech that offends the legal establishment as crisis while ignoring statements reflecting views the establishment tolerates. The contrast raises fundamental questions about due process protections and whether judicial ethics rules serve to maintain impartiality or police viewpoints. Legal observers note that Ramirez, like Brown, deserves notice and opportunity to respond before any disciplinary action, but question why comparable scrutiny has not materialized.
