On Tuesday, November 5, 2024, Florida 13th Circuit Court Judge Nancy Jacobs filed a motion in limine with the Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission (JQC). The motion aims to exclude evidence or arguments that her speech, or the speech of others attributed to her, violates the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct. Judge Jacobs contends that this speech is protected under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
The case is entitled “In the Matter of Judge Nancy Jacobs,” with case number SC2023-1303.
The filing addresses allegations that Judge Jacobs improperly managed her campaign’s social media presence. Claims include that her accounts featured inappropriate posts regarding her opponent, Judge Jared Smith, alleging associations with anti-abortion views and Republican ideology. Additional accusations assert that Judge Jacobs solicited a lawyer to challenge another sitting judge during her tenure as a Circuit Judge.
In her motion, Judge Jacobs argues that the allegations against her primarily involve her expression of philosophical beliefs, which she asserts are permissible under judicial conduct rules. She cites a recent Florida Supreme Court case, In Re Woolsey, which confirmed that judicial candidates have the right to discuss their philosophical beliefs without fear of disciplinary action.
Judge Jacobs highlights that the JQC has modified some of the charges against her but maintains that the remaining allegations do not warrant disciplinary measures. She asserts that these matters should not be considered by the panel, as they do not align with the established legal framework governing judicial candidates’ speech.
The motion also emphasizes that judicial candidates retain their First Amendment rights, referencing the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Republican Party of Minnesota v. White. This ruling indicates that states can impose restrictions on judicial candidates’ speech only if those restrictions serve a compelling interest and are narrowly tailored. Judge Jacobs argues that her statements regarding her opponent and political affiliations are protected speech and do not constitute misrepresentations of fact.
Judge Jacobs’ legal counsel argues that her comments during the campaign, which included expressing opinions about her opponent’s views and soliciting endorsements, are protected under both the Judicial Cannons and the First Amendment. They assert that the charges against her stem from her expressions of political beliefs rather than any intentional misrepresentation of facts.
The specific allegations outlined in the JQC’s formal charges include statements attributed to Judge Jacobs that criticize her opponent as a “bigot” and “antisemite,” as well as claims regarding his judicial fairness. The motion contends that these statements are largely opinions rather than falsehoods, and therefore, do not warrant disciplinary action.
Additionally, the motion addresses charges related to Judge Jacobs promoting an endorsement from the Florida Planned Parenthood PAC, arguing that expressing support for such an organization is protected speech, particularly in the context of a judicial campaign focused on issues like abortion rights.
Furthermore, the motion challenges claims that Judge Jacobs injected partisan politics into her campaign. Her counsel argues that statements allegedly made by others and attributed to her do not reflect her own views and should not be grounds for discipline. The motion insists that the JQC’s actions in this case represent an impermissible infringement on her free speech rights.
In conclusion, Judge Jacobs requests that the JQC prevent any evidence or arguments suggesting that her speech, or that of others attributed to her, violates judicial conduct rules. Her legal team emphasizes the importance of safeguarding judicial candidates’ rights to express their views on public issues, maintaining that such speech is vital to a healthy democratic process.
Judge Jacobs was elected to the bench in 2023. She graduated from the University of Miami School of Law in 1985.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
