Justices Urged To Uphold Ethics Ruling On Ga. Candidates

2026-05-21 16:20:35 -0400 ·  Listen to article

Georgia’s judicial ethics watchdog urged the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday to uphold an Eleventh Circuit ruling that allowed it to publicize accusations that a pair of unsuccessful Georgia Supreme Court candidates violated electoral rules.

The state’s Judicial Qualifications Commission said in a response that the Supreme Court is unlikely to grant certiorari to plaintiffs attorneys and former candidates Jen Jordan and Miracle Rankin and reverse the Eleventh Circuit ruling that stayed an eight-day temporary restraining order issued May 15 by the Middle District of Georgia.

Jordan and Rankin lost their respective campaigns on Tuesday, as Republican-appointed Georgia Supreme Court Justices Sarah Hawkins Warren and Charlie Bethel defended their seats on the state’s high court.

“This case would present a terrible vehicle for resolving the legal questions raised by applicants,” the commission said. “The TRO here prohibited a single act (releasing public statements) that has already occurred, in an attempt to prevent impact on an election that has already passed. This court would not review a case where, as here, the parties no longer have any concrete interest in the subject of the appeal, and where applicants’ underlying claims on the merits are so weak.”

After the stay was lifted, the commission published allegations on Sunday that Jordan and Rankin likely violated ethical rules that ban judicial candidates from publicly endorsing other candidates for public office and making statements that commit them with respect to issues likely to come before the court.

In response to the Eleventh Circuit’s decision, Jordan and Rankin asked the Supreme Court late Monday to vacate the ruling.

Jordan and Rankin had sought a temporary restraining order that would have prevented a special committee of the commission from publicly speaking about allegations that they violated the state’s Code of Judicial Conduct by publicly endorsing each other and promising to restore abortion rights if elected.

The commission said Jordan and Rankin can’t show clear and demonstrable errors in the Eleventh Circuit’s ruling, and that the Eleventh Circuit had jurisdiction to handle the commission’s challenge to the TRO.

“The TRO here enjoined the state of Georgia from ‘effectuating’ its constitutional authority to enforce the Code of Judicial Conduct for the only period that really mattered — the days leading up to the election,” the commission said. “Without the Eleventh Circuit’s stay, the commission would have forever lost the opportunity to inform Georgia voters of applicants’ likely campaign misconduct before the May 19 election.”

The commission said that Jordan and Rankin haven’t suffered a First Amendment injury from the commission’s exercise of its constitutional duties.

“The commission’s public statements merely expressed its preliminary opinions about whether candidates for Georgia’s judiciary complied with Georgia’s code of judicial ethics in campaigning for that office — a matter that falls squarely within the commission’s purview,” it said.

After Jordan and Rankin were first notified of the claims against them in late April, they sued members of the special committee in federal court. The candidates sought to temporarily prevent enforcement of the judicial code’s endorsement, commitment and false statement clauses against them on the basis that it violated their First and 14th Amendment rights.

The candidates also sought to temporarily prevent the committee from continuing its investigation or enforcing the code against them while their lawsuit was pending.

The court partially granted that motion Friday, entering an injunction stopping the committee from issuing any “non-confidential public statement” about the alleged code violations.

Two days later, however, the Eleventh Circuit gave the green light for the committee to issue its statements.

In a 2-1 ruling, U.S. Circuit Judges Kevin C. Newsom and Robert J. Luck found that the public would be harmed if people could not consider and evaluate “credible allegations of misconduct” for themselves. U.S. Circuit Judge Embry Kidd dissented.

Counsel for the parties did not respond to requests for comment on Thursday.

Jordan and Rankin are represented by Bryan L. Sells of The Law Office of Bryan L. Sells LLC, Roy E. Barnes of The Barnes Law Group LLC, S. Lester Tate III of Akin & Tate PC, and W. Matthew Wilson of Bell Wilson Law LLC.

The special committee is represented by Charles P. Boring and Jane Ashley Ravry of Robbins Alloy Belinfante Littlefield LLC, and Michael R. Huston, Jean-Jacques Cabou, Margo Casselman, Karl Worsham and Jordan Buckwald of Perkins Coie LLP.

The case is Jordan et al. v. Darrisaw et al., case number 25A1275, in the Supreme Court of the United States.