Hamilton County Judge Ted Berry is under heavy scrutiny after controversial social media posts regarding the death of Charlie Kirk surfaced online. The fallout has already been significant, with Berry removed from the Joe Burrow Foundation’s advisory board and now facing formal investigations into his conduct.
In posts that quickly spread across social media, Berry wrote inflammatory comments shortly after Kirk’s death. Among them were phrases such as “Rest in Hatred & Division” and “How’s he feel about gun violence & gun control in Hell, now?” He also added, “So, a white guy killed him! Color it KARMA!”
Because these were public statements made by a sitting judge, the Ohio Office of Disciplinary Counsel has launched a review to determine whether Berry violated the Code of Judicial Conduct. Formal grievances have already been filed.
The response has been swift. The Joe Burrow Foundation announced Berry’s removal from its advisory board, making clear that his remarks do not align with the organization’s values. Many observers have raised a larger question: if a judge publicly celebrates the death of a political figure, how can citizens trust that they will receive fair and impartial treatment in his courtroom?
The principle of justice is built on neutrality. When a judge undermines that standard, it damages not only his own credibility but also public confidence in the legal system as a whole.
This controversy is not the first time Berry has faced disciplinary challenges. In 2021, records show that a female court employee filed a complaint against him, alleging he sent her numerous inappropriate Facebook messages. The allegations included repeated requests to meet for lunch or drinks, pressure to share her phone number, and the sending of sexually explicit content. According to state disciplinary findings, Berry admitted to those actions and was found to have violated judicial conduct rules.
Now, Berry’s latest comments have reignited concerns about his fitness to serve. Critics argue that celebrating the death of any citizen—especially in such a public manner—runs counter to the impartiality required of a judge.
For many, the question is no longer whether Berry’s words were inappropriate, but whether he can continue to preside over cases with the public’s trust. Removal from one nonprofit board may be only the beginning of broader consequences.
The integrity of the judiciary relies on fairness, respect, and impartiality. When those values are compromised, confidence in the courts suffers. For that reason, many are calling for Judge Berry to resign or be formally removed from the bench—arguing that anything less leaves lasting damage to the principle of blind justice.