She Did What? This GA Judge Is Accused of All Kinds of Strange Shenanigans
The agency in charge of investigating judicial misconduct has one Georgia Superior Court Judge on its radar. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, the Judicial Qualifications Commission (JQC) has filed several charges against Judge Shermela Williams, accusing her of a growing list of ethics violations, including delaying rulings and using her position to get involved in the legal proceedings of a relative.
Williams was elected in 2020 and has served as a judge in Fulton County's Superior Court since January 2021. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports the Director of the Judicial Qualifications Commission is trying to find out if any of Williams' actions since she's been on the bench have violated the Georgia Code of Judicial Conduct. The first hearing is scheduled to start on March 5.
Some of the conduct in question includes allegations of Williams giving preferential treatment to a sorority sister in a child custody case and reaching out to an attorney for her uncle, who was facing a contempt case in front of a different judge, hoping to 'work something out.' But one of the strangest allegations was that Williams held a young woman in a courthouse holding cell 'without any legal findings or justification' during her parents' divorce case after she admitted to damaging things in his apartment due to their strained relationship.
'Today you came here and admitted to … 36 years' worth of prison on this stuff. Do you understand that?' the JQC alleges Williams told the woman. 'And all for a divorce that had nothing to do with you, right?'
Although Williams isn't speaking out publicly about the charges, her attorney, Gabe Banks, said removing his client from the bench would be 'inconsistent with the manner in which the JQC has resolved other cases' and a betrayal of the Fulton County voters who elected her.
'All Judge Williams wants and deserves is to be treated fairly. The same rules should apply to every judge. Most importantly, discipline should be meted out evenhandedly and should not be politically motivated,' he told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
For the latest news, Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
2 hours ago
- Newsweek
Louisiana Classroom Ten Commandments Requirement Blocked by Court
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A three-judge panel from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday struck down Louisiana's requirement for displaying the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms. Newsweek reached out to the office of Governor Jeff Landry via email on Saturday for comment. Why It Matters The ruling represents a decisive legal victory for advocacy groups challenging the state mandate on constitutional grounds. This constitutional challenge reflects broader national tensions over religious expression in public education, with the mandate previously receiving support from President Donald Trump and Republican lawmakers. The ruling's implications extend beyond Louisiana, as Texas advances comparable legislation that affects nearly 6 million students in the nation's second-largest school system, while Arkansas faces parallel legal challenges as well. What To Know Louisiana Republican Governor Jeff Landry enacted the classroom display requirement in June 2024, mandating poster-sized presentations of the Ten Commandments across all public-school facilities. The law was quickly challenged by parents of Louisiana school children from various religious backgrounds, who filed a lawsuit arguing it violates First Amendment language that guarantees religious liberty and forbidding government establishment of religion. The ruling by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals marked a major win for civil liberties groups who said the mandate violates the separation of church and state. The decision upholds an order issued last November by U.S. District Judge John deGravelles who declared the mandate unconstitutional and ordered state education officials not to enforce it. In a court with more than twice as many Republican-appointed judges, two of the three judges involved in Friday's ruling were appointed by Democratic presidents. Historical precedent shows the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1980 that a Kentucky law requiring the posting of the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms violated the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution, finding it had no secular purpose but served a plainly religious purpose. In 2005, the Court held that displays in Kentucky courthouses violated the Constitution, while simultaneously upholding a Ten Commandments marker on the grounds of the Texas state Capitol in Austin. A Ten Commandments sculpture is on display in front of city hall June 27, 2001, in Grand Junction, Colorado. A Ten Commandments sculpture is on display in front of city hall June 27, 2001, in Grand Junction, People Are Saying American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) senior staff attorney Heather L. Weaver told the Associated Press: "This is a resounding victory for the separation of church and state and public education. With today's ruling, the Fifth Circuit has held Louisiana accountable to a core constitutional promise: Public schools are not Sunday schools, and they must welcome all students, regardless of faith." Americans United for Separation of Church and State spokesperson Liz Hayes told the AP: "All school districts in the state are bound to comply with the U.S. Constitution. Thus, all school districts must abide by this decision and should not post the Ten Commandments in their classrooms." Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry wrote in a statement on Friday: "The Ten Commandments are the foundation of our laws—serving both an educational and historical purpose in our classrooms." What Happens Next? Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill said she would appeal the ruling, including taking it to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary. Landry stated Friday that he supports the attorney general's plans to appeal. Reporting from the Associated Press contributed to this article.
UPI
3 hours ago
- UPI
NC governor vetoes permit-less concealed carry, ICE cooperation
1 of 2 | Immigration and Customs Enforcement makes an arrest in Californa. North Carolina Gov. Josh Stein voted legislation that would have required law enforcement to coordinate operations with immigration officers. Photo by ICE/Flickr June 21 (UPI) -- North Carolina Gov. Josh Stein vetoed a bill to require state law enforcement to work more closely with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, in addition to another that would allow permit-less concealed carry of firearms. The Democratic governor on Friday announced vetoes of the legislation, which had been approved by both legislative chambers. Stein said the state is already stretched to assist federal officers. "My oath of office requires that I uphold the Constitution of the United States," Stein said. "Therefore, I cannot sign this bill because it would require sheriffs to unconstitutionally detain people for up to 48 hours after they would otherwise be released. He noted the federeal Fourth Circuit "is clear that local law enforcement officers cannot keep people in custody solely based on a suspected immigration violation." Stein said he also wants offenders to be held accountable. "Let me be clear, anyone who commits a serious crime in North Carolina must be prosecuted and held accountable regardless of their immigration status." He said he supports the bills' efforts to require sheriffs to contact federal immigration authorities about people in their custody charged with dangerous crimes, including sexual battery, armed robbery, arson, assault on public officials and court personnel. The vetoes were supported by Guilford County Sheriff Danny Rogers, Forsyth County Sheriff Bobby Kimbrough and Mecklenburg County Sheriff Gary McFadden. Republicans blasted the decision by the governor, who was elected in November. "Gov. Stein proved where his allegiances are," state Senate Leader Phil Berger posted on X. "He'd rather prioritize his far-left donors and their dangerous open-border policies over the citizens of North Carolina who are desperately pleading for us to put an end to the illegal immigration crisis. I look forward to the Senate overriding his veto." Stein also vetoed a bill that would have allowed permitless concealed carry in North Carolina. "This bill makes North Carolinians less safe and undermines responsible gun ownership," Stein said. "The bill eliminates training requirements associated with concealed carry permits and reduces the age to carry a concealed weapon from 21 to 18 years old. "We can and should protect the right to bear arms without recklessly endangering law enforcement officers and our people." Berger criticized the veto of this bill. "Law-abiding North Carolinians shouldn't have to jump through hoops to effectively exercise their Second Amendment rights," the Senate leader said. "It's past time for us to join the majority of states that recognize Constitutional Carry. I look forward to the Senate overriding Gov. Stein's veto." To override a veto, three-fifths of the House and Senate must approve the bills. In the latest election, Democrats broke the Republican supermajority in the House by gaining one seat. The GOP has a one-vote supermajority in the Senate.
San Francisco Chronicle
9 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
What to know about activist Mahmoud Khalil and his release from immigration detention
A Palestinian activist who participated in protests against Israel has been freed from federal immigration detention after 104 days. Mahmoud Khalil, who became a symbol of President Donald Trump 's clampdown on campus protests, left a federal facility in Louisiana on Friday. The former Columbia University graduate student is expected to head to New York to reunite with his U.S. citizen wife and infant son, born while Khalil was detained. Here's a look at what has happened so far in Khalil's legal battle: The arrest Federal immigration agents detained Khalil on March 8, the first arrest under Trump's crackdown on students who joined campus protests against Israel's devastating war in Gaza. Khalil, a legal U.S. resident, was then taken to an immigration detention center in Jena, a remote part of Louisiana thousands of miles from his attorneys and his wife. The 30-year-old international affairs student had served as a negotiator and spokesperson for student activists at Columbia University who took over a campus lawn to protest the war. The university brought police in to dismantle the encampment after a small group of protesters seized an administration building. Khalil was not accused of participating in the building occupation and wasn't among those arrested in connection with the demonstrations. But images of his maskless face at protests, along with his willingness to share his name with reporters, made him an object of scorn among those who saw the protesters and their demands as antisemitic. The legal fight Khalil wasn't accused of breaking any laws during the protests at Columbia. However, the government has said noncitizens who participate in such demonstrations should be expelled from the U.S. for expressing views the administration considers to be antisemitic and 'pro-Hamas,' referring to the Palestinian militant group that attacked Israel on Oct. 7, 2023. Khalil's lawyers challenged the legality of his detention, arguing that the Trump administration was trying to deport him for an activity protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio justified Khalil's deportation by citing a rarely used statute that gives him power to deport those who pose 'potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States.' The initial ruling Immigration Judge Jamee E. Comans ruled in April that the government's contention was enough to satisfy requirements for Khalil's deportation. Comans said the government had 'established by clear and convincing evidence that he is removable.' Federal judges in New York and New Jersey had previously ordered the U.S. government not to deport Khalil while his case played out in court. Khalil remained detained for several weeks, with his lawyers arguing that he was being prevented from exercising his free speech and due process rights despite no obvious reason for his continued detention. Release granted Khalil was released after U.S. District Judge Michael Farbiarz said it would be 'highly, highly unusual' for the government to continue detaining a legal U.S. resident who was unlikely to flee and hadn't been accused of any violence. 'Petitioner is not a flight risk, and the evidence presented is that he is not a danger to the community,' he said. 'Period, full stop.' During an hourlong hearing conducted by phone, the New Jersey-based judge said the government had 'clearly not met' the standards for detention. Speaking Friday outside the detention facility, Khalil said, 'Justice prevailed, but it's very long overdue. This shouldn't have taken three months.' Legal fight continues The government filed notice Friday evening that it's appealing Khalil's release. The Department of Homeland Security said in a post on the social platform X that the same day Farbiarz ordered Khalil's release, an immigration judge in Louisiana denied Khalil bond and 'ordered him removed.' That decision was made by Comans, who is in a court in the same detention facility from which Khalil was released. 'An immigration judge, not a district judge, has the authority to decide if Mr. Khalil should be released or detained,' the post said. Farbiarz ruled that the government can't deport Khalil based on its claims that his presence could undermine foreign policy. But he gave the administration leeway to pursue a potential deportation based on allegations that Khalil lied on his green card application, an accusation Khalil disputes. Khalil had to surrender his passport and can't travel internationally, but he will get his green card back and be given official documents permitting limited travel within the U.S., including New York and Michigan to visit family, New Jersey and Louisiana for court appearances and Washington to lobby Congress. Khalil said Friday that no one should be detained for protesting Israel's war in Gaza. He said his time in the Jena, Louisiana, detention facility had shown him 'a different reality about this country that supposedly champions human rights and liberty and justice.' In a statement after the judge's ruling, Khalil's wife, Dr. Noor Abdalla, said she could finally 'breathe a sigh of relief' after her husband's three months in detention. The judge's decision came after several other scholars targeted for their activism have been released from custody, including another former Palestinian student at Columbia, Mohsen Mahdawi; a Tufts University student, Rumeysa Ozturk; and a Georgetown University scholar, Badar Khan Suri.
