In the Matter of James Steven Cox

── In the Matter of James Steven Cox ── Case No.: 25S-JD-00080 Court: Indiana Supreme Court Date: March 19, 2026 Author: Loretta Rush Category: General IN THE Indiana Supreme Court Supreme Court Case No. 25S-JD-80 FILED Mar 19 2026, 1:59 pm CLERK Indiana Supreme Court In the Matter of the Honorable Court of Appeals and Tax Court J. Steven Cox, Judge of the Franklin Circuit Court, Respondent. Decided: March 19, 2026 Judicial Discipline Action Hon. Matthew E. Sarber, Hon. Marianne Vorhees, and Hon. Kelsey Hanlon, Special Masters Per Curiam Opinion Chief Justice Rush concurs. Justice Molter concurs with separate opinion in which Justice Massa and Justice Slaughter join. Justice Goff did not participate in the decision of this matter. Per curiam. This matter is before us on the Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications’ (“Commission”) “Notice of the Institution of Formal Proceedings and Statement of Charges” (“Complaint”) against Respondent, the Honorable J. Steven Cox, former Judge of the Franklin Circuit Court. After considering the evidence, the Special Masters’ report, and the parties’ arguments, we find that Respondent committed judicial misconduct by engaging in—and relying on—ex parte communication with the criminal defendant in a Level 1 felony case. We also agree that this egregious misconduct warrants the most serious discipline we can impose on a judge who no longer holds elected office: Respondent’s permanent ban from judicial service and a public reprimand. Chief Justice Rush would also find that Respondent violated our Code of Judicial Conduct by implementing a de facto policy of denying negotiated plea agreements, but the other three participating Justices would stop short of deciding whether such a policy is an ethical violation. Ante, at 1. Procedural Background On April 3, 2025, the Commission filed its Complaint against Respondent, which it later amended to correct a clerical error. The Complaint alleged three counts of misconduct: Respondent (1) engaged in ex parte communication while presiding over a Level 1 felony criminal case, State v. Guilfoyle; (2) relied on that ex parte communication to rule on issues in the case; and (3) implemented a de facto policy of rejecting all written plea agreements. With the Court’s permission, Respondent filed a belated answer, and on June 23, we appointed three Special Masters to preside over the case. With no agreement reached and after several continuances, the parties convened on September 30, 2025, for a final evidentiary hearing. On November 14, the Masters issued their 45-page report. They concluded that the Commission had carried its burden of proof as to all charged counts and rule violations. Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 25S-JD-80 | March 19, 2026 Page 2 of 12  But the Masters declined to recommend a sanction. See Admis. Disc. R. 25(VIII)(N)(2). On December 2, the Commission filed its response to the Masters’ report, wherein it recommended that this Court adopt the Masters’ findings wholesale and impose a public reprimand and six- month prohibition on Respondent’s ability to hold judicial office. Respondent petitioned for review, challenging the Masters’ conclusions. He argued that his actions did not violate any ethical rules, so we should decline to impose a sanction. The Commission filed its reply on December 31, rendering the case fully briefed for