On Saturday, March 29, 2025, Nola.com reported that Orleans Parish Civil District Judge Jennifer Medley acknowledged multiple lapses during her contentious 2020 campaign while facing scrutiny from the Louisiana Judiciary Commission. Medley, who won her position by defeating incumbent Chris Bruno, admitted to approving a political advertisement that inaccurately labeled a woman as an “actual rape victim” based solely on her claims, without verifying the facts through court records.
During the commission’s questioning, Medley also conceded that another advertisement, which labeled Bruno as a “deadbeat dad,” contained misleading information. This ad was prevented from airing following a judge’s order obtained by Bruno. Medley explained that she had directed a significant portion of a $100,000 loan from businessman Sidney Torres IV into her campaign, despite this being against state law. She claimed the action was based on advice from Torres’ lawyer, who allegedly indicated that the loan had been cleared with an ethics official.
Reflecting on her campaign decisions, Medley expressed regret, stating that while she didn’t intend to violate any rules, her campaign’s missteps were due to ignorance and poor guidance. “At no time did I intend to try to violate any rules,” she stated, emphasizing her commitment to following guidelines. However, several members of the commission challenged her assertions, suggesting that her campaign ads exceeded acceptable standards for judicial candidates.
Assistant Special Counsel John Keeling criticized Medley’s campaign tactics, describing them as deceptive and harmful to the integrity of judicial elections. Keeling stated, “Win at all costs, win by deception, win by bending or breaking any rule you need to, cannot be tolerated in our judicial campaigns.” The Office of Special Counsel is advocating for Medley to receive a one-year unpaid suspension as a consequence of her actions, with the Louisiana Supreme Court holding the authority to discipline judges.
As the commission continued its inquiry, Medley began to recognize the issues surrounding her conduct. One particular advertisement drew significant concern, as it portrayed Bruno as having mistreated a woman who claimed to be a rape victim. The woman, featured in the ad, accused Bruno of degrading her credibility during court proceedings. However, the judicial campaign oversight committee later found no truth to the allegations against Bruno. Medley stated that she withdrew the advertisement after receiving a letter from the committee, insisting it was intended to express the woman’s feelings rather than present factual claims.
Medley described her decision to run the advertisement as a mistake, admitting that it might not have been a well-conceived marketing strategy. She also expressed regret over another ad that inaccurately suggested Bruno had failed to pay child support for over a decade, while an appeals court determined that he was in arrears for only two years before the amount was clarified by a judge. Medley acknowledged that the claim in the ad was erroneous but defended the underlying message about the importance of fulfilling child support obligations.
Commission co-chair Sandra Wilson expressed dissatisfaction with Medley’s explanations, particularly regarding the misleading nature of the claims about Bruno’s child support. Wilson stated, “When you say for the public at large, for 13 years Judge Bruno avoided the obligation for caring for his child, I find that extremely misleading.”
The commission also scrutinized the loan from Torres’ company, IV Capital. Medley maintained that the loan had received clearance from a lawyer associated with Torres. She acknowledged that she had made errors in her campaign finance reports, including failing to disclose two payments made to the woman featured in the advertisement against Bruno.
Her attorney, Steve Scheckman, argued that Medley’s campaign advertisements were protected under the First Amendment and emphasized that all allegations pertained to her first-time candidacy. He described Medley as an exemplary judge and criticized the proposed disciplinary measures as excessive, comparing them to previous cases of judicial misconduct that received lighter penalties.
As the Judiciary Commission deliberates on the appropriate course of action regarding Medley’s conduct, the timeline for a decision remains uncertain.
Source: Nola.com
