Connect with us

Politics

A state judicial panel reprimands a Sonoma judge who spoke out against a high school name change

Published

on

A state judicial panel reprimands a Sonoma judge who spoke out against a high school name change

A Sonoma County Superior Court judge was issued a public admonishment Wednesday after he engaged in improper political activity and social media conduct connected to a proposed high school name change, a judicial conduct commission said.

A lawyer for the judge said the judge was simply exercising his 1st Amendment rights on a matter of public interest, not politics.

After a local school board approved a controversial consolidation of Analy High School in Sebastopol and its longtime rival, El Molino High School in Forestville, in 2021, local tempers flared, including for Judge James G. Bertoli, a 1978 Analy alumnus, the Commission on Judicial Performance said.

The Analy Alumni Assn., of which Bertoli served on the board of directors, opposed the change and led rallies, fundraising and recall campaigns for school board members.

Bertoli even played with his band, Court ‘n’ Disaster, at a fundraiser event opposing the consolidation — a band that he promoted with his judicial title and was separately admonished for in 2021. An admonishment is the least severe disciplinary action the Commission on Judicial Performance can issue.

Advertisement

The judge also met with a lawyer to discuss possible legal remedies to block the school’s name change, the commission said, creating a legal case that could have ended up in the Sonoma superior court system.

“The protest rallies involved a highly divisive issue, in which Judge Bertoli’s participation could reasonably undermine the public’s confidence in the judiciary,” the commission wrote.

At a rally opposing the name change in 2021, Bertoli was quoted saying the school board had no “flipping idea what it’s going to cost” to rebrand the existing Analy campus, the Press Democrat reported. The article and the judge’s quote were referenced by the judicial panel in the admonishment as improper. Although he never publicly called for school board members to be recalled, his hand in organizing the rallies was problematic, the commission ruled.

“As a rally organizer and speaker, Judge Bertoli’s participation in the group gave the appearance that he endorsed the group’s stated goals and activities, including the recall of all five school board members,” the commission said.

The commission rejected the defense that Bertoli wasn’t participating in political activity, stating that opinions on governmental affairs, like decisions of elected officials on a school board, could be considered political. After the name change was tossed out, the commission noted, Bertoli publicly described the victory as a democratic function of government: “Those in the minority of the result, as members of a democracy, need to learn to accept the results as the vote dictates. It is how we, the people, operate,” he wrote.

Advertisement

Bertoli’s speech was also not protected by the 1st Amendment, the commission said, because the Judicial Code of Conduct requires judges to accept additional restrictions on their speech that might be cumbersome to others in the pursuit of fairness.

James A. Murphy, Bertoli’s lawyer, told The Times he believes the commission overlooked Bertoli’s long-term ties to the school — his parents were both educators, and he worked at the school as a volunteer coach and announcer for football and baseball games, Murphy said. The judge’s concern was not just for the name change, Murphy said, but for the children who would have to deal with overcrowding due to the consolidation.

“The relationship between Analy [High School] and the Bertolis remains significant,” he said.

The name change and consolidation, which Bertoli opposed, Murphy argued, was an issue of public interest, not political. Murphy said the ruling was akin to punishing Bertoli for political opinions and actions committed by his next-door neighbor.

Murphy suggested the ruling, which is public, could have a significant chilling effect on other judges looking to express their 1st Amendment rights, making it unclear what constitutes a political issue versus what is a matter of public interest, independent of politics.

Advertisement

The commission also denounced several of Bertoli’s public Facebook posts, some of which included Peanuts and Hagar the Horrible comic strips. “Judge Bertoli made derogatory remarks about public officials, engaged in rhetoric that inflamed the passions of the community, and made profane remarks,” the commission wrote. Commenters frequently referred to him as “judge” and one thanked him for his “legal brain,” leading the commission to believe he lent the prestige of his office as a judge to his cause, which is also against the ethical code.

In one post, Bertoli shared a Hagar the Horrible comic in which Hagar comes home from battle injured, and his wife comes home equally battered — but from a school board meeting. “The West Sonoma County Union High School District board members and Superintendent Toni Beal coming home late last night,” Bertoli wrote in the caption. In another post, he characterized a school board member’s statement as “myopic, unanalytical and self-aggrandizing.”

In yet another instance, he posted a photo of himself announcing an Analy High School football game, and in response to a comment wrote, “I told them where they could put their microphone until they restore the Analy name.” He used other instances of profanity and derogatory language, the commission wrote, and spoke derisively of those who disagreed with him.

Bertoli is set to retire from the bench on Jan. 5.

Advertisement

Politics

Video: Supreme Court May Allow States to Bar Transgender Athletes

Published

on

Video: Supreme Court May Allow States to Bar Transgender Athletes

new video loaded: Supreme Court May Allow States to Bar Transgender Athletes

transcript

transcript

Supreme Court May Allow States to Bar Transgender Athletes

The Supreme Court heard two cases from West Virginia and Idaho on Tuesday. Both concerned barring the participation of transgender athletes in girls’ and women’s sports teams.

“It is undisputed that states may separate their sports teams based on sex in light of the real biological differences between males and females. States may equally apply that valid sex-based rule to biological males who self-identify as female. Denying a special accommodation to trans-identifying individuals does not discriminate on the basis of sex or gender identity or deny equal protection.” “West Virginia argues that to protect these opportunities for cisgender girls, it has to deny them to B.P.J. But Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause protect everyone. And if the evidence shows there are no relevant physiological differences between B.P.J. and other girls, then there’s no basis to exclude her.” “Given that half the states are allowing it, allowing transgender girls and women to participate, about half are not, why would we at this point, just the role of this court, jump in and try to constitutionalize a rule for the whole country while there’s still, as you say, uncertainty and debate, while there’s still strong interest in other side?” “This court has held in cases like V.M.I. that in general, classification based on sex is impermissible because in general, men and women are simply situated. Where that’s not true is for the sorts of real, enduring, obvious differences that this court talked about in cases like V.M.I., the differences in reproductive biology. I don’t think the pseudoscience you’re suggesting has been baked.” “Well, it’s not pseudo. It’s good science.” “It’s not pseudoscience to say boys’ brain development happens at a different stage than girls does.” “Well, with all respect, I don’t think there’s any science anywhere that is suggested that these intellectual differences are traceable to biological differences.” “Can we avoid your whole similarly situated argument that you run because I don’t really like it that much either? And I’m not trying to prejudice anyone making that argument later. But I mean, I think it opens a huge can of worms that maybe we don’t need to get into here.”

Advertisement
The Supreme Court heard two cases from West Virginia and Idaho on Tuesday. Both concerned barring the participation of transgender athletes in girls’ and women’s sports teams.

By Meg Felling

January 13, 2026

Continue Reading

Politics

Venezuela releases multiple American citizens from prison following military operation

Published

on

Venezuela releases multiple American citizens from prison following military operation

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

The interim government in Venezuela has released at least four U.S. citizens who were imprisoned under President Nicolás Maduro’s regime, Fox News confirmed.

The release marks the first known release of Americans in the South American country since the U.S. military completed an operation to capture authoritarian Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, who is now facing federal drug trafficking charges in New York.

“We welcome the release of detained Americans in Venezuela,” a State Department official said Tuesday. “This is an important step in the right direction by the interim authorities.”

The release of American citizens was first reported by Bloomberg.

Advertisement

TRUMP SIGNS ORDER TO PROTECT VENEZUELA OIL REVENUE HELD IN US ACCOUNTS

Venezuelans celebrate after U.S. President Donald Trump announced that Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro had been captured and flown out of the country in Santiago, Chile, Saturday, Jan. 3, 2026. (Esteban Felix/AP Photo)

President Donald Trump said Saturday that Venezuela had begun releasing political prisoners.

“Venezuela has started the process, in a BIG WAY, of releasing their political prisoners,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “Thank you! I hope those prisoners will remember how lucky they got that the USA came along and did what had to be done.”

Venezuela’s interim government has reported that 116 prisoners have been released, although only about 70 have been verified by the non-governmental organization Justicia, Encuentro y Perdón, according to Bloomberg.

Advertisement

National Assembly President Jorge Rodríguez said prisoner releases would continue, according to the outlet.

TRUMP ADMINISTRATION FILES SEIZURE WARRANTS TARGETING SHIPS TIED TO VENEZUELAN OIL TRADE: REPORT

Nicolás Maduro is seen in handcuffs after landing at a Manhattan helipad, escorted by heavily armed federal agents as they make their way into an armored car en route to a Federal courthouse in Manhattan on January 5, 2026, in New York City (XNY/Star Max/GC Images via Getty Images)

The U.S. government issued a new security alert Saturday urging Americans in Venezuela to leave the country immediately, citing security concerns and limited ability to provide emergency assistance, the U.S. Embassy in Caracas said.

“U.S. citizens in Venezuela should leave the country immediately,” the embassy said in the alert.

Advertisement

The warning pointed to reports of armed groups operating on Venezuelan roads.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Venezuelan citizens in Cucuta, Colombia celebrate during a rally on the Colombia-Venezuela border after the confirmation of Nicolás Maduro’s capture in Caracas, on January 3, 2026. (Jair F. Coll/Getty Images)

Following the military operation, Trump suggested that the U.S. would “run” Venezuela for an extended period.

“We’re going to run the country until such time as we can do a safe, proper and judicious transition,” he said.

Advertisement

Continue Reading

Politics

Lawsuits against ICE agents would be allowed under proposed California law

Published

on

Lawsuits against ICE agents would be allowed under proposed California law

A week after a Minnesota woman was fatally shot by a federal immigration officer, California legislators moved forward a bill that would make it easier for people to sue federal agents if they believe their constitutional rights were violated.

A Senate committee passed Senate Bill 747 by Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), which would provide Californians with a stronger ability to take legal action against federal law enforcement agents over excessive use of force, unlawful home searches, interfering with a right to protest and other violations.

California law already allows such suits against state and local law enforcement officials.

Successful civil suits against federal officers over constitutional rights are less common.

Wiener, appearing before Tuesday’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, said his bill has taken on new urgency in the wake of the death of Renee Nicole Good in Minnesota, the 37-year-old mother of three who was shot while driving on a snowy Minneapolis street.

Advertisement

Good was shot by an agent in self-defense, said Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, who alleged that Good tried to use her car as a weapon to run over the immigration officer.

Good’s death outraged Democratic leaders across the country, who accuse federal officers of flouting laws in their efforts to deport thousands of undocumented immigrants. In New York, legislators are proposing legislation similar to the one proposed by Wiener that would allow state-level civil actions against federal officers.

George Retes Jr., a U.S. citizen and Army veteran who was kept in federal custody for three days in July, described his ordeal at Tuesday’s committee hearing, and how immigration officers swarmed him during a raid in Camarillo.

Retes, a contracted security guard at the farm that was raided, said he was brought to Port Hueneme Naval Base. Officials swabbed his cheek to obtain DNA, and then moved him to Metropolitan Detention Center in Los Angeles. He was not allowed to make a phone call or see an attorney, he said.

“I did not resist, I did not impede or assault any agent,” Retes said.”What happened to me that day was not a misunderstanding. It was a violation of the Constitution by the very people sworn to uphold it.”

Advertisement

He also accused Department of Homeland security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin of spreading false information about him to justify his detention. DHS said in a statement last year that Retes impeded their operation, which he denies.

Retes has filed a tort claim against the U.S. government, a process that is rarely successful, said his attorney, Anya Bidwell.

Lawsuits can also be brought through the Bivens doctrine, which refers to the 1971 Supreme Court ruling Bivens vs. Six Unknown Federal Agents that established that federal officials can be sued for monetary damages for constitutional violations. But in recent decades, the Supreme Court has repeatedly restricted the ability to sue under Bivens.

Wiener’s bill, if passed by the legislature and signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, would be retroactive to March 2025.

“We’ve had enough of this terror campaign in our communities by ICE,” said Wiener at a news conference before the hearing. “We need the rule of law and we need accountability.”

Advertisement

Weiner is running for the congressional seat held by former House Speaker Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco).

Representatives for law enforcement agencies appeared at Tuesday’s hearing to ask for amendments to ensure that the bill wouldn’t lead to weakened protections for state and local officials.

“We’re not opposed to the intent of the bill. We’re just concerned about the future and the unintended consequences for your California employees,” said David Mastagni, speaking on behalf of the Peace Officers Research Assn. of California, which represents more than 85,000 public safety members.

Wiener’s bill is the latest effort by the state Legislature to challenge President Trump’s immigration raids. Newsom last year signed legislation authored by Wiener that prohibits law enforcement officials, including federal immigration agents, from wearing masks, with some exceptions.

The U.S. Department of Justice sued last year to block the law, and a hearing in the case is scheduled for Wednesday.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending