From Retirement Back to the Bench in Record Time (Image Credits: Cwbchicago.com)
Cook County, Illinois – A retired judge briefly recalled to ease the local court’s overwhelming backlog filed a federal lawsuit against Illinois Supreme Court justices, arguing his removal after six weeks stemmed from unconstitutional punishment for his personal writings.
From Retirement Back to the Bench in Record Time
The saga began when James R. Brown, a former Cook County Circuit Court judge with 18 years of service, answered a call from the Illinois Supreme Court in late 2025. The court sought experienced retirees to address Cook County’s mounting caseload issues. Brown, who had retired abruptly in March 2020 amid the COVID-19 pandemic and health challenges, saw the opportunity as a chance to contribute meaningfully once more.
He started work on December 15, 2025, assigned to the high-volume Traffic Court division. His term was slated to last nearly a full year, until December 7, 2026. During his tenure, no complaints surfaced about his performance, impartiality, or conduct. Brown had earned endorsements from every major Cook County bar association earlier in his career, including those that later sought his ouster.
A Pre-Existing Opinion Piece Sparks Backlash
Trouble arose not from his courtroom actions but from an op-ed Brown penned before even applying for recall. Titled “His Judgement Cometh and That Right Soon,” the piece appeared on journalist John Kass’s website. It criticized what Brown described as “lawfare” by progressive prosecutors and called for renewed trust in the justice system.
The column referenced political divisions, including attacks on Trump supporters and issues with certain Supreme Court nominees. Bar groups discovered the writing in late December 2025 and quickly petitioned the Supreme Court for Brown’s removal. They objected to passages on immigration, prosecutorial accountability, and cultural debates. On January 26, 2026, Chief Judge Charles Beach texted Brown at 6:30 a.m. with news of a one-sentence Supreme Court order ending his assignment.
Legal Challenge Targets Supreme Court Authority
Brown wasted no time responding. He filed a civil rights suit in federal court against the Illinois Supreme Court justices, represented by attorney Brendan Philbin of the Liberty Justice Center. The complaint alleges direct First Amendment retaliation for speech made as a private citizen. Philbin emphasized that the justices hold liability, stating, “They retaliated against Judge Brown for the words he spoke as a private citizen.”
The suit contends the Supreme Court overstepped its bounds. Under the state constitution, removals require action by the Illinois Courts Commission or legislative impeachment, not unilateral orders. Brown seeks reinstatement through December 2026, declaratory judgment on the violation, and damages for lost wages, pension impacts, and reputational harm. A preliminary injunction motion aims to restore him pending the case.
Broader Implications for Judicial Recalls
Philbin warned of a chilling effect on the roughly 300 retired judges recalled since 2019. “If they don’t agree with the orthodoxy of the Illinois Supreme Court, they better not apply,” he said. Brown himself expressed shock, noting, “Nobody contacted me… I was never accused of anything untoward in my career.”
The dispute highlights tensions between free expression and judicial standards. Bar associations defended their petitions as protected speech, bypassing formal complaint channels like the Judicial Inquiry Board.
- March 2020: Brown retires amid pandemic and surgery.
- October 2025: Expresses recall interest.
- December 15, 2025: Begins Traffic Court assignment.
- Late December 2025: Bar petitions filed.
- January 26, 2026: Supreme Court removes him.
Key Takeaways
- Brown’s op-ed predated his recall application, yet triggered removal.
- No performance issues cited during his six-week stint.
- Lawsuit could redefine limits on justices’ recall powers.
This case tests the boundaries of judicial independence and speech rights, potentially reshaping how Illinois handles recalled judges. As litigation unfolds, it raises questions about balancing personal views with public service. What do you think about the balance between free speech and judicial roles? Tell us in the comments.
