In a shocking display of radical bias from the bench, Hamilton County Judge Ted Berry is facing calls for removal from office after posting despicable comments online celebrating the assassination of Turning Point USA founder and Trump ally Charlie Kirk. Berry’s vile posts, which included statements like “Rest in Hatred and Division,” “How’s he feel about gun violence & gun control in Hell, now?” and “So, a white guy killed him! Color it KARMA!,” have drawn widespread condemnation and ignited fury among conservatives.

The controversy cost Berry his seat on the board of The Joe Burrow Foundation, a nonprofit dedicated to food security and founded by NFL star Joe Burrow. The foundation swiftly moved to distance itself from the judge, posting a statement on X: “We remain committed to accountability and respect for all. We have terminated an advisory board member that made inappropriate remarks in light of recent events and they are no longer associated with the foundation. Their comments do not reflect our values or our mission.”

Berry’s comments have also sparked calls for his removal from the bench. State Rep. Adam Mathews slammed the judge, declaring, “A judge must be a pillar of fairness and impartiality in our community. To see a sitting judge post comments like ‘Rest in Hatred & Division!’ and celebrate the killer’s race is shocking and completely unacceptable. This is not the conduct of a neutral arbiter of the law; it is the behavior of a political activist who has abandoned the core principles of his office.”

Rep. Mathews warned that if Judge Berry does not resign voluntarily, he will escalate the matter through formal channels, including filing a grievance with the Supreme Court of Ohio’s Office of Disciplinary Counsel. “The people of Ohio deserve a judiciary they can trust to be fair, unbiased, and beyond reproach,” Mathews emphasized. “Judge Berry’s actions have fallen far short of that sacred trust.”

Ohio law strictly prohibits the type of political and racially charged statements Berry made. According to the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 1 requires judges to “uphold and promote the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary” and to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Canon 2 mandates impartiality, explicitly forbidding bias or prejudice based on race. Berry’s comments, particularly celebrating the killer’s race, constitute a flagrant violation of these rules.

His political posturing and racially charged remarks also call into question Rule 2.4, which prohibits judges from allowing personal or political interests to influence their judicial conduct or judgment. Observers say Berry has demonstrated an inability to remain impartial, undermining public confidence in the integrity of the courts.

The outrage is not confined to political figures. Conservatives across social media have called Berry’s posts “shameful” and “a stain on the judiciary,” demanding accountability. Many argue that such behavior from a sitting judge is emblematic of a broader problem of radical left-leaning activism seeping into positions of power, threatening the fairness and neutrality citizens expect from the judicial system.

As calls for removal grow louder, Berry’s future as a judge—and any remaining public trust in him—hangs in the balance. For Ohioans, the issue goes beyond one man: it is a matter of preserving the integrity of the judicial system and ensuring that those who hold life-altering power over citizens’ rights do so without bias, hatred, or political agenda.