Former Mississippi Judge Carlos Moore Speaks Out After Permanent Removal From the Bench

Former Mississippi municipal judge and civil-rights attorney Carlos E. Moore is speaking publicly about the controversy that ultimately ended his judicial career in Mississippi — and the story raises a much larger conversation about race, free speech, judicial ethics, and what happens when a judge uses his public platform to challenge the system he serves.

The Mississippi Supreme Court formally removed Moore from the bench in January 2025 after finding that his social-media activity and public comments violated the Mississippi Constitution, judicial-conduct rules, and a previous agreement he had entered into with the Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance. Moore was also fined $3,000 plus costs. Under Mississippi law, that removal is permanent, meaning Moore is ineligible to return to judicial office in the state. (Justia Law⁠)

But describing the case simply as a judge being “banned for life” leaves out the complicated history behind the decision.

WHO IS CARLOS MOORE?

Moore served as municipal judge in Clarksdale beginning in 2017 and later became municipal judge in Grenada in 2020. At the same time, he maintained a private legal practice and became known for taking on civil-rights matters and highly publicized cases. (Justia Law⁠)

His relationship with Mississippi’s judicial disciplinary system had already become contentious years before his permanent removal.

In 2019, the Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance warned Moore about discussing court matters on social media. In 2020, Moore entered into a memorandum of understanding with the Commission governing his online activity and use of his judicial title. (Justia Law⁠)

Then came another disciplinary case.

In 2023, the Mississippi Supreme Court suspended Moore for 60 days without pay, publicly reprimanded him and fined him $1,500 after finding that he improperly used his courtroom authority to confront two police officers over an issue connected to his private law practice. (Justia Law⁠)

THE COMMENTS THAT HELPED PUSH THE BATTLE FURTHER

The later case centered heavily on Moore’s public speech.

Court records detail a social-media statement Moore made following the Kyle Rittenhouse acquittal, as well as comments he made during a 2022 appearance on The Kelly Clarkson Show. The Judicial Performance Commission argued that Moore’s public commentary, continued use of his judicial identity online and other conduct violated judicial ethics rules and the earlier agreement. (Justia Law⁠)

The Mississippi Supreme Court ultimately agreed.

The majority concluded that Moore’s conduct undermined public confidence in the judiciary and amounted to willful misconduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. Because the court found a violation under Article 6, Section 177A of the Mississippi Constitution, removal meant permanent separation from judicial office — not simply a temporary suspension. (Justia Law⁠)

But there was disagreement even inside the state’s highest court.

Justice Leslie King dissented, arguing that the statements involved were protected by the First Amendment. (Mississippi Appeals Blog⁠)

And that disagreement gets to the heart of why Moore’s story deserves a deeper conversation.

WAS THIS ABOUT JUDICIAL CONDUCT — OR SPEAKING TOO LOUDLY?

Judges unquestionably operate under ethical restrictions that ordinary citizens do not. Judicial impartiality is fundamental to the legitimacy of the courts.

But Moore’s case creates another question:

How much of his voice should a Black judge have to surrender when he puts on the robe?

What happens when a judge believes racial inequality exists within the same criminal-justice system he has sworn to uphold?

There is a legitimate institutional argument that judges cannot publicly comment in ways that create doubts about their neutrality.

There is also a legitimate civil-rights argument that demanding silence from people inside powerful institutions can prevent the public from hearing firsthand criticism about inequities within those institutions.

Those two principles collide directly in this case.

And Moore appears unwilling to allow the Mississippi Supreme Court’s ruling to be the only version of the story told about him.

BOSSTALK 101: THE CONVERSATION IS BIGGER THAN ONE JUDGE

The real BossTalk conversation isn’t simply whether Carlos Moore lost his position.

It’s about power, accountability and who gets to challenge institutions from inside those institutions.

Can you fight systemic inequality while occupying a position that requires public neutrality?

Should judicial ethics outweigh a judge’s ability to publicly discuss racial disparities?

And when a Black professional reaches a position of institutional power, does gaining that seat sometimes require surrendering part of the voice that helped get them there?

Carlos Moore’s story sits directly in the middle of those questions.

The Mississippi Supreme Court has already decided the legal question.

The cultural conversation is far from over.

BossTalk 101 Question of the Day

Do you believe Carlos Moore’s permanent removal was appropriate judicial accountability — or did Mississippi go too far in punishing a judge for publicly speaking about race and justice?

Drop your perspective in the comments.

BossTalk 101 — It’s A Unique Hustle.

For more conversations surrounding culture, community leadership, entertainment, business and the issues affecting our communities, stay connected with BossTalk 101.