JudgeMental Podcast – Episode 98 The High Life

In this episode, Christine and Trey kick off with a classic Friday vibe — Miller High Life may or may not have been involved — before diving into a case that will leave you asking: how did this end up in federal court?

Case: B.B. v. Castano Unified School District (9th Circuit)

A 7-year-old first-grade student drew a picture of her friends holding hands after a class lesson on Martin Luther King Jr. She included the words "Black Lives Matter" (misspelled) and gave it to her African American classmate as a gesture of kindness and solidarity. The school punished her — and a federal civil rights lawsuit followed.

The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's grant of summary judgment, holding that even elementary school students have First Amendment speech protections under Tinker v. Des Moines, and that a student's young age is a relevant but non-dispositive factor. The panel made clear that this sweet, well-intentioned drawing was nowhere near the kind of disruptive speech schools are permitted to regulate.

Christine and Trey break down the opinion, discuss how the political climate turned an act of childhood kindness into a constitutional controversy, and reflect on the real-world implications of zero-tolerance school discipline policies.

Also in this episode:

Christine's firsthand account of teaching at a Louisville public school — the school-to-prison pipeline, segregated cafeteria tables, books that can't leave the classroom, and a student who photographed every page just to study at home

The parallels between public school bureaucracy and family court dysfunction — conflict is incentivized, pragmatism is rare

A broader conversation about Tinker v. Des Moines, political polarization, cancel culture, and whether reasonable minds can still prevail

Resources & Links:

Find us online at judge-y.com

Follow us on social: @Judgingthejudges

Rate and review judges in your jurisdiction with the Judge-y app — download Judge-y today!

LEGAL DISCLAIMER

The content of this podcast is for informational and entertainment purposes only. It is not intended to be, and should not be construed as, legal advice. Engaging with this content does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and the hosts, guests, or their firms. The views and opinions expressed on this podcast are solely those of the individuals involved and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any law firm, company, or organization. We make no representations or warranties regarding the accuracy, completeness, or applicability of the information presented. Any reliance on the information in this podcast is at your own risk. Laws are constantly changing, and every situation is unique. You should always seek the advice of a qualified attorney for your specific legal concerns.

JudgeMental Podcast – Episode 96 Derby Week

In this episode, Christine and Trey dive deep into one of the most pressing issues facing the judiciary today: judges on social media. What happens when a judge in a black robe posts videos laced with religious teachings? Is it protected free speech — or a troubling conflict of interest? The hosts unpack a viral video of a Texas judge weaving scripture into a courtroom-adjacent social media post, debate where the line should be drawn, and agree that the robe changes everything.

The conversation expands into a broader reckoning with judicial transparency — or the lack of it. Christine and Hugh make the case for C-SPAN-style coverage of courts, particularly family courts, arguing that the branch of government most people interact with is somehow the least visible. They also discuss the alarming state of family court: confidential dockets, overworked court-appointed attorneys, and decisions about children's lives made in hallways.

Christine drops a bold prediction: that Kentucky's legislature will move to close all family court proceedings at the next session — and she's willing to bet on it.

Topics covered:

Judge David (Texas) and the viral black robe/scripture video

Religion in judicial campaigning vs. religion on the bench

Why wearing the robe on social media is uniquely problematic

The case for C-SPAN in courtrooms

How family court confidentiality shields dysfunction

Court-appointed attorneys and the "just sign this" problem

The erosion of judicial independence at the federal and state level

Immigration judges and the stacking of the courts

The impeachment of judges as a political tool

Christine's prediction: family courts go fully confidential next session

Resources & Community:

Rate any judge for free and join the anonymous judicial review community: judge-y.com

Follow us on social: @Judgingthejudges

Download the Judge-y app — rate judges, read reviews, and connect with others navigating the court system. The community is anonymous and affordable. judge-y.com

LEGAL DISCLAIMER

The content of this podcast is for informational and entertainment purposes only. It is not intended to be, and should not be construed as, legal advice. Engaging with this content does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and the hosts, guests, or their firms. The views and opinions expressed on this podcast are solely those of the individuals involved and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any law firm, company, or organization. We make no representations or warranties regarding the accuracy, completeness, or applicability of the information presented. Any reliance on the information in this podcast is at your own risk. Laws are constantly changing, and every situation is unique. You should always seek the advice of a qualified attorney for your specific legal concerns.

JudgeMental Podcast – EP 95: Fight Club Friday

Christine and Trey kick off another Friday episode with a little pre-show chaos — including a strong stance on Tom Banks, a near-miss with a Bee Sting honey beer, and a serious case of OMA restaurant FOMO (the soon-to-be first Michelin star restaurant in Kentucky — 15 seats, twice a day, sold out through July). They also reminisce about the beloved, now-closed Italian Table on Frankfurt Avenue and what makes a great communal dining experience.

Then things get lawyerly — and heated.

The Divorce Attorney Debate

Christine and Trey dig into why divorce attorneys occupy a uniquely complicated space in the legal profession. They debate whether arguing opposite sides of the same legal issue in different cases is a principled necessity or a credibility killer — and whether the civil world's flexibility crosses a line when both attorneys agreed to a position before walking into court. The conversation touches on attorney ethics, client obligations, and why Christine believes divorce law is its own breed of legal practice.

Judge Christine Ward & Division Six

The hosts revisit their ongoing concerns about Division Six family court. Christine shares a bombshell: Judge Christine Ward once let a Courier Journal journalist shadow her confidential docket — yet has been systematically locking out court watchers (including Trey, who was denied Zoom access despite having his name clearly listed). They also weigh in on their trending post about former Ward staff attorney Julie Renick, who made her social media private after the episode dropped.

The Cool, Calm, and Collected Problem

Christine raises a deeply important pattern she's observed in family court: judges tend to reward emotionally composed litigants — and in her experience, those are often the ones with the most to hide. Trey agrees it's worth an entire episode. The conversation leads into a heartbreaking real-world example: a Virginia murder-suicide involving a doctor and her husband who was in active family court litigation and had just been ordered to vacate the home.

Practical Advice: Recordings in Family Court

Trey shares some of the most impactful moments from his years of practice — cases where one-party-consent recordings saved his clients from false allegations, wrongful arrests, and even international custody kidnappings. (Always check your state's recording laws first.)

By the Numbers

Christine wraps with a Jay-Z quote and some incredible milestone news: the JudgeMental Podcast is now streaming in 64 countries, with over 10,000 downloads of the Judge-y app. The community is growing — and they want to hear from you.

Find us & follow along:

Download the app: Judge-y

Website: judge-y.com

Instagram/Social: @Judgingthejudges

LEGAL DISCLAIMER

The content of this podcast is for informational and entertainment purposes only. It is not intended to be, and should not be construed as, legal advice. Engaging with this content does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and the hosts, guests, or their firms. The views and opinions expressed on this podcast are solely those of the individuals involved and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any law firm, company, or organization. We make no representations or warranties regarding the accuracy, completeness, or applicability of the information presented. Any reliance on the information in this podcast is at your own risk. Laws are constantly changing, and every situation is unique. You should always seek the advice of a qualified attorney for your specific legal concerns.