Judge Gina Higgins Under Scrutiny After Courtroom Confrontation Raises Questions of Judicial Neutrality and Constitutional Fairness
By: Shelby County Observer | January 18, 2026
MEMPHIS—TN. Judge Gina Higgins presided over a Friday hearing that was expected to address procedural motions in a long-running civil dispute. Instead, the hearing itself became the focal point—raising serious questions among courtroom observers about judicial demeanor, procedural authority, and the boundaries of courtroom power.
Observers from the Shelby County Observer, present in the courtroom on both January 7 and January 16, witnessed an exchange that legal analysts say may implicate fundamental principles of due process and judicial neutrality.
What Happened in the Courtroom
After the plaintiff waited more than three hours for his motions to be heard, defense counsel raised an issue unrelated to the merits of the pending motions: the identity and associations of members of the press seated in the courtroom.
The inquiry was not tied to any evidentiary dispute, procedural rule, or pending motion. There is no Tennessee statute, rule of civil procedure, or ethical requirement obligating a litigant to disclose personal familiarity with members of the press attending a public courtroom.
Yet the questioning continued.
When the plaintiff expressed that he was “stunned” by the turn of events—an expression that appeared to be an effort at composure rather than defiance—the Court responded by invoking the same word and announced that filings would be struck.
No motion to strike had been filed.
No rule was cited.
No opportunity to cure was offered.
To observers, the action appeared punitive rather than procedural.
Why the Strike Matters
Courts possess authority to strike filings—but only under defined circumstances:
- Pursuant to rule-based motions,
- As a sanction following notice and findings, or
- Due to jurisdictional defects.
What occurred here did not fit those categories.
Legal scholars note that punitive judicial action untethered to rule-based authority risks crossing from case management into coercion—particularly when imposed for conduct that is neither unlawful nor unethical.
The Broader Legal Context
The incident did not occur in isolation.
Defense counsel Kenneth Margolis has been involved in at least two recent proceedings in which trial courts confronted questions surrounding post-judgment relief entered without a properly filed Rule 60.02 motion—instead referencing “clerical error” under Rule 60.01, a rule that by its own text does not permit correction of judicial mistakes.
Under Tennessee law, clerical errors may be corrected ministerially. Judicial errors—errors of judgment—require a motion under Rule 60.02 with notice, briefing, and findings.
Observers note that when courts conflate the two, the result is not mere technical error, but a breakdown in procedural safeguards.
Judicial Conduct Implications
Ethics experts contacted by the Observer point to several provisions of the Tennessee Code of Judicial Conduct potentially implicated by what unfolded in open court:
- Rule 1.1 (Compliance with the Law)
- Rule 1.2 (Promoting Confidence in the Judiciary)
- Rule 2.2 (Impartiality and Fairness)
- Rule 2.3 (Bias, Prejudice, and Harassment)
- Rule 2.8(B) (Patience, Dignity, and Courtesy)
At issue is not whether a judge ruled against a party—adverse rulings alone are not misconduct—but whether the manner and basis of the Court’s actions would cause a reasonable observer to question impartiality.
That is the standard articulated repeatedly by the United States Supreme Court.
Constitutional Dimensions
Several constitutional interests are implicated when a litigant is punished for failing to disclose information the law does not require:
- Procedural Due Process (Fourteenth Amendment)
- Freedom of Association and Petition (First Amendment)
- Right to a Neutral Tribunal
As the Supreme Court has long held, “Justice must satisfy the appearance of justice.”
A Republic, Not a Ruling Class
The Founding Fathers designed the American judiciary precisely to prevent scenes like the one that unfolded on January 16. They had lived under a system where judges served the Crown, not the people—where authority flowed downward, unchecked by transparency, procedure, or restraint. That is why the Constitution rejects judicial intimidation and embraces due process, open courts, and the equal dignity of every citizen who appears before the bench.
What occurred on January 16 would have been familiar in colonial Britain, where judges exercised broad, often arbitrary power and citizens were expected to submit without question. It should be alien in a constitutional democracy. In the American system, judges are not sovereigns; they are servants of the law. Their legitimacy rests not on command, but on fairness—on the visible, disciplined application of rules that protect liberty even when proceedings are tense or contentious.
This is no way for judges to treat citizens in a democracy. Public humiliation, irrelevant inquiry, and punitive action untethered to law are the very abuses the Revolution sought to end. The Constitution does not license courts to punish disbelief, regulate lawful associations, or substitute personal offense for procedural authority. It demands the opposite: patience, neutrality, and fidelity to established process.
What happened on January 16 was not merely a hearing—it was a moment that reminds us why transparency, procedure, and restraint remain the cornerstones of judicial legitimacy. When those cornerstones are shaken, public confidence erodes, and the line between lawful authority and arbitrary power begins to blur. In a republic, that line must never be crossed.
Why This Matters Beyond One Case
Courtrooms are public institutions. Judges wield immense authority, and with it comes the obligation to exercise restraint—especially when confronting unrepresented litigants.
When irrelevant personal associations become the basis for judicial rebuke, and when punishment follows without rule or warning, the issue transcends any single dispute. It becomes a question of public confidence.
The Shelby County Observer will continue to monitor developments, including any transcript releases, appellate filings, or judicial-conduct proceedings that may follow.
About Post Author
