Have Questions? Contact Us.
Since its inception, NYCLA has been at the forefront of most legal debates in the country. We have provided legal education for more than 40 years.
The Importance of Responsible Journalism About the Judiciary
As appeared on February 26, 2026 on Law.com
Commentary
The Importance of Responsible Journalism About the Judiciary
“While journalists unquestionably enjoy the protections of the First Amendment, basic principles of ethics require them to be responsible about the allegations they make, for fear of fomenting threats of violence.”
February 26, 2026 at 01:20 PM By Richard P. Swanson & Ronald C. Minkoff
Last month the New York Post published an article accusing Judge Sheridan Jack-Browne in Manhattan Criminal Court of intentionally helping a criminal defendant avoid an ICE arrest. The article was erroneous and grossly unfair. It raises the issue of the responsibility of journalists in reporting on the judiciary during a divided era. While journalists unquestionably enjoy the protections of the First Amendment, basic principles of ethics require them to be responsible about the allegations they make, for fear of fomenting threats of violence.
On Saturday, January 31 the Post published an article accusing the judge of letting a defendant “waltz out of the courtroom.” The preliminary hearing was on a desk appearance ticket for allegedly shoplifting. Apparently, ICE had a non-judicial warrant, a “detainer,” out for the defendant, who is undocumented. The article asserted that the judge “would have had” the ICE warrant in the case file. This assertion was based solely on two unidentified “sources” asserting what is typical.
The actual case file shows there was no ICE warrant in the file, and the transcript of the hearing shows that no one apprised the judge of its existence. She released the defendant, because under New York law she had no choice given the shoplifting charge, and the ADA did not object. If anyone from ICE was in the courtroom, or anywhere nearby in the courthouse, they did not announce themselves or their interest in the matter.
The article also suggested that the judge helped the defendant escape out the backdoor of the courthouse to avoid ICE detection. In this regard, the intimation clearly was that this case was just like one involving Judge Hannah Dugan in Wisconsin, in which she was convicting of helping an immigrant evade federal agents. However, in this case, the defendant left via an open public exit near the courtroom. When ICE did detain him later outside, there was no struggle or attempt to flee, as seen in security footage from outside the courthouse.
In short, insofar as the proceedings before Judge Jack-Browne were concerned, there was nothing abnormal or unusual, and nothing in the record to suggest an ICE detainer or warrant even existed.
We immediately wrote a letter to the editor of the Post protesting its inaccurate reporting and calling for an apology or retraction. As representatives of a bar association, defending the judiciary against unfair attacks is part of our job. We understand that the State’s Office of Court Administration gave the Post a correct statement of the facts as well.
The Post did not reply to any of our requests. On February 2, it published an editorial criticizing “Dems” for refusing to allow ICE to deport the defendant. The editorial assumed the complete truth of the underlying article.
The effect was both immediate and predictable. The Post published a series of letters from readers demanding the judge’s resignation or firing, and drawing the explicit analogy to the Dugan case, which the Post had left implicit. The article and the editorial can be fairly characterized as “rage bait.”
This is a divided era, and attacks on judges have become common. While systematic data on threats to state court judges is harder to come by, the U.S. Marshal’s Service just this month noted the increasing number of threats to federal judges. There is no reason to doubt that the same is true for state court judges. The National Center for State Courts, on which board NYCLA’s vice- president Henry Greenberg sits, reports that in November of this past year the U.S. Senate unanimously passed the Countering Threats and Attacks on Our Judges Act (S. 2379), which, if also passed by the House, would create a resource center to provide information and investigative assistance to counter similar threats to state court judges, confirming that the threats exist in our state courts as well. While we know of no actual physical threats having been made in this particular instance, the risk always exists.
Any time threats are made against judges for the substance of their rulings, be they physical threats, death threats, swatting instances or other forms of attempted intimidation, the rule of law is diminished. The rule of law, so fundamental to American society, is undermined if judges do not feel completely free to render the decisions that best reflect their independent determinations on the merits. And when journalists act to encourage such threats, through reckless rhetoric and inaccurate, overstated reporting, they abuse their First Amendment privileges in irresponsible and dangerous ways.
Judges should of course expect to be criticized for the substance of their decisions from time to time. Fair criticism is appropriate and comes with the judicial territory. But in an era where judicial criticism can quickly become vituperative and even risk violence, journalists need to be careful about contributing to that criticism in ways that are unfair, and excessively risky. The pizza boxes being delivered to judges’ homes anonymously are designed to refer to the killing of Judge Esther Salas’s son, as if to say “we know where you live and you could suffer the same fate, so you’d better toe the line.”
We all know about the contribution politicians make to these unfortunate risks, and it is fair to ask them to be more responsible, but it is also fair to ask the same of journalists. Check the facts for accuracy, please, before publishing potentially provocative pieces, and when you get it wrong, as will happen at times, acknowledge it openly and quickly. In criticizing judicial decisions, all journalists should be aware of the potential consequences of irresponsible reporting.
Richard P. Swanson is president of New York County Lawyer’s Association.
Ronald C. Minkoff is NYCLA’s president-elect.
Editor’s Note: The New York Post has responded to claims of factual inaccuracy in its reporting: “The story makes clear that there are differing accounts about what the judge knew. The NYPD has said the judge was aware of the outstanding warrant; court officials have said the judge was not. The article reflected that dispute. Reporting on the actions of public officials, including judges, is journalism.
Reprinted with permission from the February 26th online edition of Law.com © 2026 ALM Global Properties, LLC. All rights reserved. Further duplication without permission is prohibited, contact 877-256-2472 or asset-and-logo-licensing@alm.com
Richard P. Swanson is president of New York County Lawyer’s Association. Ronald C. Minkoff is NYCLA’s president-elect. This commentary reflects the views of the authors. It has not been reviewed by NYCLA’s full board of directors and does not necessarily represent its views.