Cook County Circuit Judge Cynthia Ramirez posted an expletive-laden attack on federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement on social media while serving on the bench, yet Illinois bar associations that previously demanded the removal of another judge over political commentary have remained silent about her conduct.

Two Judges, Two Different Standards

The contrast centers on Judge James R. Brown, a retired Cook County Circuit Court judge with nearly two decades of service. Brown wrote a political opinion column during retirement before the Illinois Supreme Court appointed him to a temporary judicial assignment. Two bar associations objected to his past writings, claiming they violated the Illinois Code of Judicial Conduct and demonstrated a lack of impartiality. The Illinois Supreme Court removed him with a one-sentence order, providing no notice, hearing, or due process.

Brown, a retired Cook County judge, wrote a political opinion column before returning to the bench.

The Illinois Supreme Court removed him through a one-sentence order—no notice, no hearing, and no due process.

It later cited Rule 1.2, which requires judges to promote public…

— Liberty Justice Center (@LJCenter) July 23, 2026

Brown wrote his commentary as a private citizen before returning to judicial service. Ramirez posted her profane statement about a federal law enforcement agency while actively serving as a judge. No bar association has publicly called for her removal or expressed concern about her conduct. No disciplinary action has been initiated against her, despite the same rules supposedly governing both judges equally.

Federal Court Finds Serious Problems

Brown filed a federal lawsuit challenging his removal. The federal court declined immediate reinstatement but refused to dismiss his case, finding he had viable First Amendment and due process claims. The court noted Brown was likely to succeed on his procedural due process claim. He had been appointed to a fixed-term assignment with a fixed salary and removed without the investigation, notice, or public hearing guaranteed by Illinois law.

The federal court stayed the case to allow Illinois courts to address fundamental questions about judicial removal procedures. The court described the situation with one remarkable observation: thorny and unprecedented questions of Illinois state law abound. Brown has now appealed to the Seventh Circuit, arguing a federal court cannot send him into a state system controlled by the justices whose actions he challenges.

Selective Enforcement Raises Concerns

The Illinois Supreme Court cited Rule 1.2 when removing Brown, a provision requiring judges to promote public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary. Legal observers question how Ramirez’s profane denunciation of a federal law enforcement agency promotes such confidence in her impartiality and temperament. The timing distinction offers no explanation, as Brown wrote while retired and Ramirez posted while serving. The apparent selective enforcement suggests Illinois applies judicial ethics rules based on political viewpoint rather than neutral standards of conduct.