“Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears” is a blog series documenting the harmful impact of President Trump’s judges on Americans’ rights and liberties. It includes judges nominated in both his first and second terms.
What’s at stake in this case?
Two candidates for state supreme court judgeships tried to stop a state commission from publicizing charges against them just before the election.
What happened in this case?
Jennifer Jordan and Shamiracle Rankin were running for seats on the Georgia Supreme Court in 2026. Both are pro-choice and made that clear in their campaigns. Complaints were filed against them with the state judicial conduct commission, claiming that they improperly accepted endorsements from pro-choice groups and undertook related actions.
The candidates filed a federal complaint against the commissioners, maintaining that the commission’s conduct was violating their First Amendment rights. After briefing and a hearing, Chief Judge Leslie Gardner issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) that stopped the commissioners from publicizing the charges while it continued its investigation concerning Jordan and Rankin before the election. As Gardner explained, the “immediate harm” of a pre-election “public statement alleging violations, without proper consideration of the Plaintiffs’ constitutional claims, greatly outweighs the Defendants’ right to make a public statement after only a preliminary review in what is supposed to be a confidential procedure.”
The commissioners appealed to the Eleventh Circuit. In Jordan v Darrisaw in May, Trump judges Kevin Nesom and Robert Luck issued a 2-1 ruling in May that stayed the district court order until after the election, thus allowing the commission to publicize its actions. Biden judge Embry Kidd dissented.
What was the rationale of Trump judges Newsom and Luck?
Trump judges Newsom and Luck claimed that there would be “irreparable harm” to the Commission and the public if the commission were not allowed to make public the charges against the candidates before the election. Without a stay of the lower court injunction, they wrote, the public “will be harmed by not knowing about, and getting to evaluate for themselves, the credible allegations of misconduct” against the candidates.
Why did Biden judge Embry Kidd dissent?
Judge Kidd strongly disagreed. Ordinarily, he explained, a TRO can be challenged on appeal only if it threatens “serious, perhaps irreparable consequences” as in “life or death situations.” The Commission’s desire to “issue a public statement on the eve of an election is not close to a life or death situation”, Kidd wrote. Any harm to the Commission from the temporary delay ordered by the court below, he went on, would be “significantly less than the harm to the candidates from a public statement regarding their alleged code violations issued on the eve of the election,” particularly since the Commission could later order even “suspension and removal” of the candidates if its investigation so justified.
Why is this decision harmful?
The ruling by Trump judges Newsom and Luck obviously harmed the two candidates, who lost their elections after the public statements by the Commission. Progressives in Georgia have criticized the decision, contending that it provides a “blueprint” for “silencing” progressive candidates in future state judicial elections. The decision also illustrates the importance of our federal courts to health, welfare and justice and the significance of having fair-minded judges on the federal bench.