On Thursday, February 6, 2025, the Tampa Bay Times reported that a hearing to determine whether Hillsborough County Judge Nancy Jacobs violated judicial ethics concluded, leaving her future on the bench uncertain. The three-day hearing focused on remarks made during and after the contentious 2022 judicial election, where Jacobs defeated former Judge Jared Smith.
The Judicial Qualifications Commission charged Jacobs in 2023 with multiple violations of Florida’s judicial canons, primarily related to statements made by her and her supporters concerning Smith. The charges include allegations that Jacobs attempted to recruit an attorney to run against another judge, which she denied, and a notable instance where she called an attorney a “fat, balding lawyer” during a court case. Jacobs admitted to this latter charge, explaining that she lost her temper after a challenging hearing and later apologized.
Henry Coxe III, special counsel for the commission, emphasized the importance of maintaining the judiciary’s independence from governmental interference. In his closing remarks, he stated, “Without that trust, without public confidence in the third branch of government, there is nothing left.”
Jacobs’ attorney, Ryan Barack, argued that the public chose Jacobs as their judge and that the criticisms stemmed from a heated electoral battle. He noted that Jacobs had shown a willingness to negotiate a settlement with the commission, but the case proceeded to trial. The Florida Supreme Court will ultimately decide on any disciplinary action, which could range from censure to removal from office.
The adjudicating panel, composed of two out-of-town judges, two former presidents of the Florida Bar, and two lay members appointed by Governor Ron DeSantis, is expected to release a report with findings and recommendations in the coming months. Following her election, Governor DeSantis appointed Smith to the newly established 6th District Court of Appeal, further complicating the dynamics between the two.
The hearing took place in a ceremonial courtroom adorned with portraits of former judges. Jacobs testified twice, expressing regret for her conduct during the campaign while asserting that many of her statements were protected under free speech. She shared personal experiences that shaped her as a judge, including a childhood battle with epilepsy and a career focused on criminal defense and family law.
The campaign backdrop was heavily influenced by the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, which intensified discussions around abortion rights. Jacobs and Smith exchanged allegations of bigotry, particularly concerning comments made by Smith’s supporters. Jacobs recounted encounters with Smith’s father-in-law, who allegedly made disparaging remarks about her Jewish faith.
Tension escalated after a video surfaced of Smith and his wife at a church event, where his wife suggested that Jacobs “needed Jesus.” This video prompted Jacobs to label Smith as a “bigot” in a text message to an activist, which became a point of contention in her case.
Jacobs’ campaign Facebook page also came under scrutiny for comments about Smith’s judicial decisions, including criticism regarding his handling of a minor’s abortion case. Testimony revealed that Jacobs sought advice from a judicial ethics advisor and believed her comments were permissible.
Witnesses for Jacobs included fellow judges and attorneys who testified about the contentious nature of the campaign. Judge Robin Fuson reported a strained relationship with Jacobs, while attorney Gary Dolgin expressed concerns over the negative campaign tactics used against Jacobs, particularly those invoking her religious identity.
Support for Jacobs was echoed by Judge Nick Nazaretian, who acknowledged that while Jacobs had admitted to some inappropriate actions, he hesitated to determine her fitness for the bench without further knowledge of the allegations.
As the panel deliberates, the future of Judge Nancy Jacobs hangs in the balance, poised for a decision that may resonate far beyond the courtroom, impacting public trust in the judicial system.
Source: Tampa Bay Times
