Broward Judge Mardi Levey Cohen receives public reprimand, 10-day suspension
The Florida Supreme Court on Tuesday publicly reprimanded Broward County Judge Mardi Levey Cohen after an investigation into allegations that she acted improperly during a 2022 re-election campaign.
Levey Cohen, who also received a 10-day suspension, appeared before justices for the reprimand.
The Supreme Court last month approved an agreement, known as a stipulation, reached by Levey Cohen and the state Judicial Qualifications Commission, which investigates judicial conduct.
A filing at the Supreme Court said Levey Cohen was accused, in part, of forwarding an email about her election opponent to a representative of the Wynmoor Condominium Democratic Club 'without verifying the accuracy of the claims.'
The information, for example, included an accusation that Levey Cohen's opponent obtained money from the federal Paycheck Protection Program during the COVID-19 pandemic when she did not qualify.
Also, a May 8 Supreme Court order said Levey Cohen filed an Internal Revenue Service complaint challenging the tax-exempt status of a church where her opponent campaigned.
The order said Levey Cohen sent a copy of the complaint to the church with a false return address, 'suggesting that the correspondence was from the IRS itself.'
Chief Justice Carlos Muniz said during Tuesday's reprimand that misconduct poses a risk to public confidence in the judiciary.
'Any unethical behavior by a judge — including in a campaign setting — puts that trust at risk,' Muniz said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
UPI
29 minutes ago
- UPI
Supreme Court revives straight woman's 'reverse discrimination' suit
The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled Thursday that a straight woman denied a management position in favor of gay hires can revive her Title VII Civil Rights Act job discrimination lawsuit. File Photo by Fred Schilling, Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States/UPI | License Photo June 5 (UPI) -- The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled Thursday that a straight woman can move forward with her Title VII Civil Rights Act job discrimination lawsuit, which claimed "reverse discrimination." The justices voted 9-0 to side with Marlean Ames, ruling that she faced a higher burden to be able to sue for discrimination as a straight woman after she was passed up for job opportunities in favor of two LGBTQ applicants. "We conclude that Title VII does not impose such a heightened standard on majority-group plaintiffs," the court wrote. Ames sued the Ohio Department of Youth Services after she was denied a management position in favor of a lesbian woman hired for that job. She also lost out on another job at the agency when a gay man was hired instead as a program administrator. The lower court judgment was vacated and the Ames case was remanded back to the lower court to be heard applying the Supreme Court's finding. The decision said the Sixth Circuit erred when it "implemented a rule that requires certain Title VII plaintiffs-those who are members of majority groups-to satisfy a heightened evidentiary standard." The ruling makes it easier for majority-group plaintiffs to argue "reverse discrimination" lawsuits. At issue was the "background circumstances" rule. As interpreted by the Sixth Circuit, that rule requires members of a majority group to satisfy a heightened evidentiary standard in Title VII lawsuits. "Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone," the Supreme Court decision said. "The Sixth Circuit's 'background circumstances' rule requires plaintiffs who are members of a majority group to bear an additional burden at step one. But the text of Title VII's disparate-treatment provision draws no distinctions between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs." The Supreme Court said that provision "focuses on individuals rather than groups, barring discrimination against 'any individual' because of protected characteristics." The high court rejected Ohio's argument that the "background circumstances" rule does not subject majority-group plaintiffs to a heightened legal standard when they sue alleging discrimination under Title VII. "The 'background circumstances' rule -- which subjects all majority-group plaintiffs to the same, highly specific evidentiary standard in every case -- ignores the Court's instruction to avoid inflexible applications of the prima facie standard," the Supreme Court wrote. The Supreme Court held that "the standard for proving disparate treatment under Title VII does not vary based on whether or not the plaintiff is a member of a majority group." The Civil Rights Act bars discrimination based on "race, color, religion, sex or national origin." Ohio maintained Ames was not chosen for the jobs in question due to her lack of the necessary vision and leadership skills, not because she was straight. A three-judge Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals panel agreed that Ames would have been likely to prevail if she was a gay woman. But they ruled against her due to the higher burden created by the Sixth Circuit interpretation of the "background circumstances" rule.
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
California petitions FDA to undo RFK Jr.'s new limits on abortion pill mifepristone
California and three other states petitioned the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Thursday to ease its new restrictions on the abortion pill mifepristone, citing the drug's proven safety record and arguing the new limits are unnecessary. "The medication is a lifeline for millions of women who need access to time-sensitive, critical healthcare — especially low-income women and those who live in rural and underserved areas," said California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, who filed the petition alongside the attorneys general of Massachusetts, New York and New Jersey. The petition cites Senate testimony by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. last month, in which Kennedy said he had ordered FDA administrator Martin Makary to conduct a "complete review" of mifepristone and its labeling requirements. The drug, which can be received by mail, has been on the U.S. market for 25 years and taken safely by millions of Americans, according to experts. It is the most common method of terminating a pregnancy in the U.S., with its use surging after the Supreme Court overturned Roe vs. Wade in 2022. The Supreme Court upheld access to the drug for early pregnancies under previous FDA regulations last year, but it has remained a target of anti-abortion conservatives. The Trump administration has given Kennedy broad rein to shake up American medicine under his "Make America Healthy Again" banner, and Kennedy has swiftly rankled medical experts by using dubious science — and even fake citations — to question vaccine regimens and research and other longstanding public health measures. Read more: Hiltzik: MAHA report's misrepresentations will harm public health and hit consumers' pocketbooks At the Senate hearing, Kennedy cited "new data" from a flawed report pushed by anti-abortion groups — and not published in any peer-reviewed journal — to question the safety of mifepristone, calling the report "alarming." "Clearly, it indicates that, at very least, the label should be changed," Kennedy said. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) on Monday posted a letter from Makary to X, in which Makary wrote that he was "committed to conducting a review of mifepristone" alongside "the professional career scientists" at the FDA. Makary said he could not provide additional information given ongoing litigation around the drug. The states, in their 54-page petition, wrote that "no new scientific data has emerged since the FDA's last regulatory actions that would alter the conclusion that mifepristone remains exceptionally safe and effective," and that studies "that have frequently been cited to undermine mifepristone's extensive safety record have been widely criticized, retracted, or both." Democrats have derided Kennedy's efforts to reclassify mifepristone as politically motivated and baseless. "This is yet another attack on women's reproductive freedom and scientifically-reviewed health care," Gov. Gavin Newsom said the day after Kennedy's Senate testimony. "California will continue to protect every person's right to make their own medical decisions and help ensure that Mifepristone is available to those who need it." Bonta said Thursday that mifepristone's placement under the FDA's Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy program for drugs with known, serious side effects — or REMS — was "medically unjustified," unduly burdened patient access and placed "undue strain on the nation's entire health system." He said mifepristone "allows people to get reproductive care as early as possible when it is safest, least expensive, and least invasive," is "so safe that it presents lower risks of serious complications than taking Tylenol," and that its long safety record "is backed by science and cannot be erased at the whim of the Trump Administration." Read more: Q&A: The FDA says the abortion pill mifepristone is safe. Here's the evidence The FDA has previously said that fewer than 0.5% of women who take the drug experience 'serious adverse reactions,' and deaths are exceedingly rare. The REMS program requires prescribers to add their names to national and local abortion provider lists, which can be a deterrent for doctors given safety threats, and pharmacies to comply with complex tracking, shipping and reporting requirements, which can be a deterrent to carrying the drug, Bonta said. It also requires patients to sign forms in which they attest to wanting to "end [their] pregnancy," which Bonta said can be a deterrent for women using the drug after a miscarriage — one of its common uses — or for those in states pursuing criminal penalties for women seeking certain abortion care. Under federal law, REMS requirements must address a specific risk posed by a drug and cannot be "unduly burdensome" on patients, and the new application to mifepristone "fails to meet that standard," Bonta said. The states' petition is not a lawsuit, but a regulatory request for the FDA to reverse course, the states said. If the FDA will not do so nationwide, the four petitioning states asked that it "exercise its discretion to not enforce the requirements" in their states, which Bonta's office said already have "robust state laws that ensure safe prescribing, rigorous informed consent, and professional accountability." Get the L.A. Times Politics newsletter. Deeply reported insights into legislation, politics and policy from Sacramento, Washington and beyond, in your inbox twice per week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
The Hill
34 minutes ago
- The Hill
How Trump's new travel ban differs from his first term
President Trump issued a new travel ban that targets 12 countries and includes partial restrictions on seven others, expanding on the policy he put into place during his first term. Trump's attempts to restrict entry into the United States from certain countries in his first term drew legal challenges and protests at airports across the country. This time around, the administration laid the foundation for the proclamation with an earlier executive order focused on enhanced vetting. Here are the countries targeted by the travel ban, and how they differ from those included in Trump's first-term policy. Trump's first-term travel ban went through multiple iterations after federal courts blocked the initial version. The policy stopped entry into the U.S. for nationals from seven Muslim-majority nations: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. Its attempted implementation led to mass confusion and was blocked by a federal judge. The version eventually upheld by the Supreme Court barred entry into the United States for nationals of Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela and Yemen. Chad was later removed after the administration said it met its security requirements. Former President Biden revoked Trump's travel ban upon taking office. Perhaps most notably, Syria and North Korea are no longer included on Trump's new travel ban, which goes into effect Monday. Trump during his first term developed a warmer relationship with North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un, and they held two in-person summits. The president last month announced he would lift U.S. sanctions on Syria following the ousting of dictator Bashar Assad in December. Trump said he was encouraged to do so by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. Chad, Iran, Somalia, Libya and Yemen are back on the travel ban list. Venezuela is one of seven countries that will have travel 'partially' restricted. In total, the travel ban issued on Wednesday affects 19 countries. Nationals from 12 countries face a full ban. Those include Afghanistan, Chad, Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Myanmar, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. Nationals from seven countries will have entry into the United States partially restricted. Those include Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela. The New York Times reported that the State Department issued roughly 170,000 visas in total to the 12 countries that are banned from entry, most of which were for tourism, business or study.
