The State Commission on Judicial Conduct issued a public reprimand against former Hereford Municipal Judge Jennifer Eggen after concluding she violated judicial ethics, civil rights provisions, and due-process obligations through a sustained pattern of discriminatory, humiliating, and unlawful conduct. 

The decision has sparked mixed reaction — not because the findings are unclear, but because Eggen retired before discipline was issued, leaving the Commission with no ability to remove, suspend, or restrict her from a position she no longer holds. In cases like this, a public reprimand becomes the strongest possible outcome still available under state authority.

“I Hope He Gets a Big Black Man That Would Make Him His Bitch”

Among the most disturbing allegations substantiated by witness accounts were statements made to juveniles on the bench.

The Commission found that Judge Eggen told a 15-year-old defendant 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 child left the courtroom “very upset and crying.” 

In another hearing involving a juvenile, witnesses reported Eggen said he:

“was nothing but a little bitch… an easy target for the bigger men he would encounter in jail.” 

And in a separate case, a third juvenile was told she hoped:

“they put him in jail with a big black man that would make him his sex toy.” 

Parents in these hearings were not spared.

One mother trying to explain her child’s psychiatric diagnosis was silenced, while Eggen allegedly told both parents they:

“should’ve slapped him,”

suggesting his behavior was their fault. 

A Pattern of Targeting Poverty, Immigration Status, and Hispanic Defendants

The Commission also found Eggen:

• Openly disparaged defendants for being unable to pay fines
• Refused to provide indigency forms required by law
• Blocked non-English speakers from the courtroom without a privately paid interpreter
• Held undocumented individuals to harsher standards than others

Witnesses reported Eggen asked immigrants, through a translator, if they knew they needed a license “when they crossed into her country,” adding that:

“The first phone call the jail makes is to immigration,”

and implying their children could be taken by CPS. 

Hispanic juveniles were reportedly not allowed to resolve court matters during school hours because, in Eggen’s words, they were:

“Too stupid to be missing any school.” 

Exceptions for the Influential. Harshness for Everyone Else.

While denying payment plans and record relief to most defendants, Eggen granted preferential treatment to those with personal or political connection.

The Commission found she approved deferred disposition for a local county commissioner’s employee so his commercial driver’s license would not be jeopardized, despite the defendant already having pled guilty. She also ordered her staff to offer deferred adjudication to a fellow church member because:

“He does not need an assault on his record.” 

Such leniency did not extend to low-income, undocumented, or unconnected defendants, most of whom were never informed that deferral or record-sealing options even existed. 

Holding People in Court Until They Paid — Even After Police Released Them

In one documented instance, a man was brought to court on Class C warrants and released by police, but Eggen refused to let him leave, telling him he could not go until the tickets were paid. When she learned his household received food assistance, witnesses say she remarked:

“Oh, I feed that baby,” referring to his infant child. 

When the man attempted to speak, she warned him he was:

“Skating on thin ice” and ordered him to be quiet. 

Embarrassment as Enforcement

The Commission also confirmed that Eggen attempted to use public humiliation as a penalty. Before each graduation season, she directed staff to prepare warrants for seniors with unpaid tickets, telling her team she wanted police to serve them at graduation or in stadium bleachers.

When staff raised concerns, she responded:

“The embarrassment of not graduating would be [the students’] fault.” 

“I’ve Never Given Anyone an Alternative to Incarceration Other Than Paying Up.”

The Commission cited a 2015 BuzzFeed News article in which Eggen, then on the bench, stated that in nine years she had:

“Never given anyone an alternative to incarceration other than paying up.” 

That admission directly conflicts with Texas law, which prohibits jailing someone solely because of inability to pay fines.

Eggen’s Response: Retirement, Then Denial

Initially, Eggen responded to the Commission by stating simply:

“I am no longer employed by the City of Hereford Municipal Court having retired after 19 years of service.” 

She later denied the allegations, despite the findings of multiple witnesses and documented legal violations. 

Why Only a Reprimand? The Reality of Retirement

The reaction many have had — “That’s it?” — is understandable when reading the findings. But the Commission’s disciplinary authority ends where employment ends. Removal, suspension, or restrictions on judicial duties cannot apply to someone who no longer serves.

In this context, the public reprimand is not a light punishment — it is the strongest sanction still legally available.

It does not rewrite history, reopen cases, or compensate defendants, but it places her conduct permanently into public record and judicial disciplinary archives, affirming that the behavior:

• violated constitutional rights,
• breached judicial ethics,
• showed racial and economic bias,
• denied due process,
• and diminished public trust in the judicial system.  

A Record That Will Not Disappear

The courtroom doors may be closed, her robe hung up, and the bench seat empty — but the findings now carry a different weight than courtroom authority ever did.

A reprimand may not feel as forceful as removal, but unlike a resignation, it cannot be undone, erased, or explained away. It is a formal declaration from the state:

This happened. It was wrong. And it dishonored the court.

---

---

Disclaimer

The content provided in this publication is for educational and informational purposes only. The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News strives to deliver accurate and impactful stories. However, readers are advised to seek professional legal counsel and guidance for their specific legal inquiries and concerns. The publication does not assume any responsibility for actions taken by individuals based on the information presented. 

Additionally, while every effort is made to ensure the reliability of the information, the publication does not warrant the completeness, accuracy, or timeliness of the content. Readers are encouraged to verify any legal information with official sources and to use their discretion when interpreting and applying the information provided.

A Couple of Our Other Reads

You may be interested in our publishing on the 772 arrest notifications TCOLE received in 2024..

Or you may find our publishing on a newly elected Texas sheriff’s battle with TCOLE over the accuracy of his personal history statement of interest.  

Follow Us on Social Media

If you are interested in staying updated on matters about your government in Texas and other important stories, trust The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News to provide reliable information that matters to you. You can follow us on social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, X, Reddit, YouTube, Tumblr, and LinkedIn to stay connected and informed.

FACEBOOK: TheHawksEyeNews
INSTAGRAM: Hawk_s_Eye_C_and_N
X: TheHawksEyeNews
REDDIT: TheHawksEyeCN
YOUTUBE: The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News
TUMBLR: The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News
LINKEDIN: The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News

---