How municipal judge Jennifer Eggen earned a Public Reprimand from the Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct
| THE QUICK ANSWER
In October 2025, the Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct issued a Public Reprimand to Jennifer Eggen, a former municipal judge in Hereford, Texas. The Commission found that she berated children and parents from the bench, showed favoritism to friends and influential locals, and detained or pressured low-income defendants who could not afford to pay their fines. |
| CASE FILE AT A GLANCE | |
| Judge | Hon. Jennifer Eggen (since retired) |
| Court | Municipal Court, Hereford |
| County | Deaf Smith County, Texas |
| CJC Numbers | 22-0515 & 22-1411 |
| Sanction | Public Reprimand |
| Date Issued | October 20, 2025 |
| Signed By | Ken Wise, Vice-Chair, State Commission on Judicial Conduct |
What Happened in Hereford
Hereford is a small city in the Texas Panhandle. For roughly two decades, Jennifer Eggen presided over its municipal court which is the court that handles traffic tickets, Class C misdemeanors, and juvenile cases. For most people who never set foot in a courtroom, a court like this is the only one they will ever see.
Drawing on multiple witnesses (including the judge’s own courthouse staff) the Commission’s findings describe a courtroom run on intimidation, favoritism, and contempt for the people least able to fight back. And the warning signs were public for years. In 2015, Eggen was quoted in a national news investigation headlined “In Texas It’s a Crime to be Poor,” saying that in nine years on the bench she had never given anyone an alternative to incarceration other than paying up.
The complaints behind this reprimand were opened in 2022. The Commission concluded its review in August 2025 and issued the Public Reprimand that October. By then, Eggen had retired after 19 years on the bench (but a public reprimand follows a judge, regardless).
Cruelty From the Bench
The Commission found that when Eggen presided over juvenile dockets, she berated and demeaned children and their parents including reports of yelling so loudly that courthouse staff could hear her through the walls.
According to the findings, on May 11, 2021, multiple witnesses reported that Eggen told a 15-year-old boy (identified in the order only as D.R.) that she “hoped that when he got locked up, he would get a big black man as his cell mate that would make him his bitch.” The boy left the courtroom crying. In the same hearing, the Commission found, she told his parents they “should’ve slapped him” and blamed them for his behavior; when his mother tried to explain that he had recently received a psychiatric diagnosis, Eggen would not let her speak.
These were not isolated remarks. The Commission found that on a separate occasion she told another juvenile he would be “an easy target for the bigger men he would encounter in jail,” and told yet another child she “hoped they put him in jail with a big black man that would make him his sex toy.” During hearings for driving without a license, courthouse staff heard her tell defendants they were “too stupid to be driving” and tell parents they were “not good parents.” These were children and families appearing in a court that handles minor offenses.
Justice for Friends, Warrants for Everyone Else
The Commission found that Eggen routinely handed out breaks to the well-connected that she denied to everyone else. As a general practice, she did not allow her clerk to offer most defendants the option to defer or remove a charge even when those defendants directly asked how to keep something off their record. For favored people, the rules were different:
- A sitting county commissioner and prominent businessman asked Eggen to let one of his employees defer a ticket so it would not jeopardize the employee’s commercial driver’s license. She granted the request even though the man had already entered a guilty plea.
- A member of the judge’s church, charged with assault, was offered deferred adjudication because, in Eggen’s words to her clerk, “he does not need an assault on his record.”
- A longtime friend and former deputy sheriff was permitted to bring a juvenile employee into the courthouse to handle a ticket without a parent present (an exception Eggen refused to grant undocumented juveniles).
The favoritism extended to enforcement, too. The Commission found that Eggen selectively sent reminder letters before the 14-day payment deadline; for everyone else, a warrant issued automatically the moment the deadline passed.
Criminalizing Poverty
This is the legal heart of the case. Texas law is explicit: a judge cannot simply jail a person for being too poor to pay a fine. When a defendant says they cannot afford to pay, the judge must hold an undue hardship hearing and consider alternatives such as installment plans, community service, or waiving the fine in whole or in part. We are not supposed to have Debtor’s Prisons in Texas.
The Commission found that Eggen ignored these requirements as a matter of routine. She did not hold undue hardship hearings. She did not provide indigency forms even when defendants asked directly and even after she received educational training on the issue. The order states she provided an indigency form on a single occasion in all the conduct reviewed.
The human cost runs through the findings. A father who had lost his job and was living in a hotel with his wife and five children tried to show proof of his circumstances to get a payment plan; Eggen told him to “get out of here, just go.” Another defendant said he could not pay, and Eggen told her clerk, “if he has money to buy drugs, then he has money to pay his warrants”. The clerk handed him an indigency form anyway over the judge’s objection.
The most striking finding involves a man brought to the courthouse in May 2022 on warrants for unpaid tickets. Deputies uncuffed him and told the judge he would not be arrested (the local police had a policy that Class C warrants would not be accepted at the jail). Eggen told him anyway that he could not leave until he paid. When she learned his family was on food stamps, multiple witnesses said she remarked, of his infant daughter, “Oh, I feed that baby.” She held him until his grandmother could scrape together the money. The Commission also found that Eggen took car keys from drivers until they produced insurance or another driver, followed defendants (including juveniles) out of the courthouse to photograph their license plates, and, as a yearly practice, tried to send officers to the homes and graduation stadiums of high school seniors who had unpaid tickets.
| KNOW YOUR RIGHTS: FINES YOU CAN’T AFFORD
Under Texas law, being unable to afford a fine is not a crime. If you tell a municipal or justice court you cannot pay: • The judge must hold an undue hardship hearing. • The court must consider alternatives — paying in installments, community service, or waiving the fine in whole or in part. • You cannot be jailed for nonpayment unless, after a hearing, the judge makes a written finding that you could have paid and failed to make a good-faith effort. If a court is not honoring these rights, that is not just unfair — it is a violation of both the law and the Code of Judicial Conduct. |
A Pattern of Bias
The Commission found that Eggen engaged in a pattern of conduct biased against Hispanic, undocumented, and low-income people, including children. She would not allow Hispanic, undocumented, or low-income juveniles to come during school hours to deal with tickets (telling them they were “too stupid to be missing any school”) while permitting non-Hispanic juveniles to clear their tickets during the school day.
She berated undocumented defendants through a clerk providing translation, asking whether they knew they needed a license “when they crossed into her country,” warning that “the first phone call the jail makes is to immigration,” and implying that Child Protective Services would take their children. She would not allow defendants who did not speak English into her courtroom unless they had hired their own interpreter. During a training on judicial ethics, the Commission found, she told her clerk that the complaint process “just gives [citizens] more reason to bitch.”
The Rules She Broke
The Commission concluded that Eggen’s conduct violated seven provisions of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct, along with the Texas Constitution:
| Rule | What It Requires |
| Canon 2A | A judge shall comply with the law. |
| Canon 2B | A judge shall not let relationships influence judicial conduct, and shall not lend the prestige of the office to advance private interests. |
| Canon 3B(2) | A judge shall maintain professional competence in the law. |
| Canon 3B(4) | A judge shall be patient, dignified, and courteous to everyone in the courtroom. |
| Canon 3B(5) | A judge shall perform judicial duties without bias or prejudice. |
| Canon 3B(6) | A judge shall not, by words or conduct, manifest bias or prejudice including bias based on race, national origin, or socioeconomic status. |
| Canon 3B(8) | A judge shall accord every person with a legal interest in a proceeding the right to be heard. |
| Texas Constitution, Art. V, § 1-a(6)A | A judge shall not engage in willful or persistent conduct that is clearly inconsistent with the proper performance of judicial duties or that discredits the judiciary. |
The Sanction — and What It Means
The Commission issued a Public Reprimand which is the most serious sanction it can impose short of formal removal proceedings, and, as we explained in the Introduction to this series, the top of the public sanctions ladder. Because the sanction is public, Eggen’s name and the Commission’s findings are now part of the permanent public record.
The Commission found Eggen’s conduct “willful and persistent” and “clearly inconsistent with the proper performance of a judge’s duties”. By the time the order issued, Eggen had retired; in her brief written response she said only that she had retired after 19 years of service, and in a later supplement she denied any misconduct. A reprimand still matters for a former judge: it is permanent, it is public, and it can be weighed if she ever seeks to serve again, including sitting by assignment. As with any sanction, Eggen had 30 days to appeal the reprimand to a Special Court of Review.
How It Played in the Press
Public sanctions are designed to ensure public awareness, and this one traveled. When the reprimand became public in November 2025, it drew coverage well beyond the Texas Panhandle from Amarillo television stations KVII and KFDA and the regional outlet MyHighPlains, to statewide outlet Texas Scorecard, and ultimately to the American Bar Association’s ABA Journal, which reported on the case in December 2025. Several outlets centered their headlines on the same detail: a judge telling children she hoped they would be raped in jail.
That reporting filled in facts the order itself leaves out. The Commission’s executive director, Jacqueline Habersham, told Texas Scorecard that the complaints were filed by Eggen’s former court clerk and by a confidential source which is a reminder that, as we noted in the Introduction, courthouse insiders are often the ones who set these investigations in motion. Habersham also said that because Eggen did not cooperate with the investigation, the Commission could not even pin down the exact date she left the bench.
Local coverage added a civics footnote worth keeping in mind for this series. Reporting on the case noted that a large share of Texas municipal judges (the courts where most people encounter the justice system) are not licensed attorneys. The City of Hereford itself, several outlets reported, declined to comment.
The Takeaway
This is the kind of case that explains why the Code of Judicial Conduct exists in the first place. Judges hold enormous power over ordinary people, especially in municipal and justice courts, where most Texans who ever appear before a judge go for something as routine as a traffic ticket.
The people who stood before Judge Eggen were children, their parents, working people who had lost a job, and families on food stamps. The law gave every one of them rights to be treated with dignity, to be heard, and to a hearing before being jailed over money they did not have. For years, the Commission found, those rights were ignored. The lesson for anyone facing a charge, however small: know your rights, insist on them, and never assume the person in the robe will volunteer them for you.
Where Is She Now?
Jennifer Eggen is no longer on the bench. According to Hereford’s city manager, she retired on June 13 (ending a tenure of roughly 19 years) and the Commission has noted she retired before the Public Reprimand was issued. The City of Hereford appointed Cindy Simons as the new municipal judge.
Here is the part of the story most people find hardest to accept. A Public Reprimand does not bar Eggen from ever serving as a judge again. The Commission confirmed exactly that: its executive director told Texas Scorecard that the reprimand does not disqualify Eggen from holding judicial office in the future. The reprimand is permanent and public (it will follow her name) but it is not, by itself, a disqualification. Many Texas municipal judges are appointed by city councils rather than elected, and nothing in this sanction legally prevents a future appointment or a return to the bench by assignment.
We found no public record of an appeal to a Special Court of Review, and no indication that Eggen has sought or returned to a judicial position since retiring. If that changes, the Gavel of Shame will follow up.
Our Takeaway
How did she engage in this behavior for nearly 19 years and not one person or attorney (that we are aware of) filed a complaint?
| A Fair Hearing Isn’t Optional — It’s the Law
At Deandra Grant Law, we believe everyone deserves to be treated fairly by the courts regardless of income, background, or the size of the charge. If you are facing a DWI or criminal charge in Dallas, Tarrant, Collin, Denton, Rockwall, or McLennan County, we will make sure your rights are protected and your voice is heard. Call (214) 225-7117 • texasdwisite.com |
The Gavel of Shame • Case File No. 1
By Deandra Grant • Deandra Grant Law • Published May 2026
Sources
Primary source
- Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct, Public Reprimand of the Honorable Jennifer Eggen, CJC Nos. 22-0515 & 22-1411 (issued October 20, 2025). texas.gov
News coverage
- KVII (ABC 7 Amarillo), “Retired Hereford judge publicly reprimanded for ‘demeaning’ comments to juveniles.” com
- KFDA (NewsChannel 10), “Hereford judge’s horrifying courtroom comments revealed in public reprimand.” com
- MyHighPlains (KAMR), “Retired Deaf Smith County Municipal Judge publicly reprimanded by State Commission on Judicial Conduct.” com
- Texas Scorecard, “Retired Judge Reprimanded for Telling Juveniles She Hopes ‘Big Black Men’ Use Them as ‘Sex Toys.’” com
- ABA Journal, “Former judge reprimanded for insulting, humiliating children in court.” com
This post summarizes the findings of a public sanction issued by the Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct. All quotations and findings are drawn from that public order. It is general commentary on a public record, not legal advice.