"I Don't Give a Rat's Ass" — Mississippi Judge Uses Profanity From the Bench

“I Don’t Give a Rat’s Ass” — Mississippi Judge Uses Profanity From the Bench While Presiding Over a Public Profanity Trial

A Union County Justice Court judge dismissed the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution with a vulgarity — during a hearing for the crime of being vulgar. If this isn’t proof that Mississippi’s public profanity law is unconstitutionally vague and selectively enforced, nothing is.

I. The Irony That Broke the Case Wide Open

On May 5, 2026, inside the Union County Justice Court in New Albany, Mississippi, independent journalist and First Amendment auditor Matthew Reardon stood before a judge to face a criminal charge under Mississippi Code §97-29-47 — Public Profanity. The charge: Reardon had used a profane word during public comment at a Union County Board of Supervisors meeting. What happened next should end this case — and this law — permanently. When Reardon raised the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution — the bedrock legal principle that federal constitutional protections override state and local laws — the presiding judge responded from the bench:

“I don’t give a rat’s ass about that.”

Read that again. A judge presiding over a public profanity trial used profanity from the bench. In open court. On the record. If the judge himself cannot maintain the standard the law supposedly requires — in his own courtroom, during the very proceeding meant to enforce that standard — then the law is, by definition, too vague for any type of enforcement that is even remotely constitutional. This isn’t just irony. It’s the case imploding on itself.

II. The Arrest: A Word at a Public Meeting

The prosecution of Matthew Reardon began at the Union County Board of Supervisors meeting on April 20, 2026. Reardon, exercising his right to address his elected officials during a public meeting — a quintessential First Amendment activity in a designated public forum — used a profane word. Body camera footage obtained from the incident reveals a disturbing sequence that goes far beyond a reaction to a single word:

Agenda manipulation — evidence suggests the meeting was structured to limit or control public comment
Targeted speech restriction — Reardon was singled out for speech policing while others were not
Deliberate provocation test — officials appeared to be testing how far they could push to create a basis for enforcement
Immediate physical force — Reardon was physically removed from the meeting
Instant business resumption — the meeting continued immediately after Reardon’s removal, suggesting no actual disruption occurred

That last point is critical. If the Board of Supervisors resumed normal business the moment Reardon was removed, the “disruption” wasn’t the word — the disruption was manufactured to justify the arrest. An MDOC (Mississippi Department of Corrections) hold was placed on Reardon — a measure typically reserved for violent offenders and parole violators, not someone accused of saying a bad word at a public meeting. Federal civil rights notices have been served demanding that the State, County, Sheriff, and MDOC identify exactly who ordered that hold and under what authority.

III. The Constitutional Avalanche: 9 Motions, 32 Supreme Court Cases

At the May 5, 2026 hearing, Reardon — representing himself pro se — arrived not with an apology, but with a legal arsenal. He filed nine separate motions challenging every dimension of the prosecution:

1. Motion to Dismiss (8 pages)

Raises 10 independent constitutional grounds for dismissal, including violations of the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Requests full expungement of all records.

2. Memorandum of Law (24 pages)

Cites 32 United States Supreme Court cases including landmark First Amendment decisions: Counterman v. Colorado, R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, and the public forum doctrine. This isn’t a casual filing — it’s a constitutional treatise arguing that §97-29-47 cannot survive any level of judicial scrutiny.

3. Motion for Discovery

Demands production of all body camera footage, MDOC hold documentation, inter-official communications, witness statements, prior enforcement history of §97-29-47, and all Brady/Giglio material. If this statute has been selectively enforced — applied to journalists and critics but not to, say, judges who use profanity from the bench — that evidence will prove it.

4. Motion for Procedural Advisor

Requests standby counsel for procedural guidance while retaining full direction and control of his own defense, citing Faretta v. California and McKaskle v. Wiggins.

5. Motion to Allow Audio & Video Recording (8 pages)

Union County Justice Court has no court reporter. Without recording, there is no verbatim record for appeal. This motion argues that denying recording would deny Reardon his constitutional right to meaningful appellate review, citing Griffin v. Illinois and Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia.

6. Motion for MEC Access & E-Filing (7 pages)

Seeks access to Mississippi Electronic Courts for registration, e-filing authority, and fee waiver, citing Bounds v. Smith and Boddie v. Connecticut.

7. Motion for Preliminary Injunction / TRO

Seeks to restrain Union County, the Sheriff’s Department, and MDOC from enforcing §97-29-47 entirely. Argues all four preliminary injunction factors are met. Names MDOC as a restrained party and demands remote court appearances.

8. Demand for Speedy Trial

Invokes the Sixth Amendment and Mississippi Constitution Article 3, §26. Applies the Barker v. Wingo four-factor analysis. Will not consent to any continuance.

9. Motion for Recusal of Presiding Judge (filed May 10)

This is the coup de grâce. Filed after the May 5 hearing, this motion demands the judge’s removal on grounds that he used the word “rat’s ass” from the bench during a public profanity trial — demonstrating actual bias and destroying any appearance of impartiality. Cites Mississippi Code §9-1-11, Canon 3 of judicial conduct, In re Murchison, Grayned v. City of Rockford, and Yick Wo v. Hopkins. Supported by three YouTube video exhibits from the hearing.

IV. The Supremacy Clause Problem the Judge Doesn’t “Give a Rat’s Ass” About

Here’s what the judge dismissed with a vulgarity: The Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution) establishes that the Constitution and federal law are “the supreme Law of the Land.” When a state or local law conflicts with the Constitution, the Constitution wins. Period. The First Amendment protects freedom of speech. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that profanity, standing alone, is constitutionally protected speech. In Cohen v. California (1971), the Court ruled that the government cannot criminalize the mere use of offensive language. In Counterman v. Colorado (2023), the Court reinforced that speech restrictions require proof of subjective intent. Mississippi Code §97-29-47 criminalizes “public profanity” — but:

It does not define which words are “profane”
It does not specify what constitutes “public”
It provides no objective standard for enforcement
It makes no exception for political speech, public comment, or speech directed at government officials in public forums

When a judge presiding over a profanity case uses profanity from the bench and faces zero consequences, the selective enforcement is laid bare. The law doesn’t prohibit profanity — it prohibits profanity by people the government wants to silence. That is the textbook definition of a law that is unconstitutionally vague under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause and overbroad under the First Amendment.

V. The Hearing: Tension, Constitutional Arguments, and a Judge Who Lost His Composure

The May 5 hearing was captured on video and released in three parts. The footage tells a story of a defendant who came prepared with constitutional law — and a judge who came prepared to ignore it. Part 1: Tension Starts to Rise Reardon begins presenting his constitutional arguments, including the Supremacy Clause and the preemption of state profanity statutes by First Amendment protections. The courtroom atmosphere shifts as the judge realizes this won’t be a quick guilty plea. Part 2: Temperatures Keep Rising The constitutional arguments intensify. Reardon presses on federal supremacy, the vagueness doctrine, and the selective enforcement of the statute. The court’s patience visibly thins as the defendant refuses to accept the legitimacy of the charge. Part 3: The Judge Loses Composure This is the moment. When Reardon invokes the Supremacy Clause, the judge — the person charged with impartially applying the law — responds: “I don’t give a rat’s ass about that.” In one sentence, the judge:

Dismissed the supreme law of the United States from the bench
Used profanity during a profanity trial — proving the law’s standard is unenforceable even by the judge enforcing it
Demonstrated actual bias against the defendant’s constitutional defense
Created grounds for his own recusal and potential judicial misconduct proceedings

VI. Federal Civil Rights Claims: This Goes Beyond Mississippi

Reardon hasn’t limited his fight to state court. Federal notices have been formally served under 42 U.S.C. §1983, §1985, and §1986 against:

The State of Mississippi
Union County
The Union County Sheriff’s Department
The Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC)

The notices demand identification of who ordered the MDOC hold on Reardon — an extraordinary measure for a misdemeanor profanity charge — and place all parties on a litigation hold requiring preservation of all body camera footage, text messages, emails, radio communications, and booking records. Spoliation of any evidence will trigger sanctions. This case is headed to federal court. And when it gets there, every official who participated in arresting, holding, and prosecuting a journalist for a single word at a public meeting will have to explain themselves under oath.

VII. The Bigger Picture: Why This Case Matters

This isn’t just about one word at one meeting in one Mississippi county. Across the country, cities and municipalities are using vague, archaic statutes to criminalize dissent. Public profanity laws, disorderly conduct ordinances, and “disruption” charges are wielded as weapons against the people most likely to hold government accountable: journalists, activists, and citizens who show up to public meetings and refuse to be silent. The Union County case exposes the fundamental fraud at the heart of these prosecutions:

The law is unconstitutionally vague — if the judge can’t even follow it, no citizen can reasonably know what conduct is prohibited
Enforcement is selective — the statute is used against critics of government, not against judges who swear from the bench
The Supremacy Clause is not optional — a local Mississippi justice court cannot override the First Amendment, no matter how little the judge “gives a rat’s ass” about it
The punishment doesn’t match the “crime” — an MDOC hold for a profanity charge reveals the true purpose: intimidation, not justice

Matthew Reardon has pled not guilty. He has demanded a speedy trial. He has filed nine motions backed by 32 Supreme Court precedents. He has put the State, the County, the Sheriff, and MDOC on federal notice. And the judge — the one person who was supposed to be the neutral arbiter of this dispute — already proved Reardon’s entire argument the moment he opened his mouth.

Case Information

Case: Union County v. Reardon — Public Profanity (Mississippi Code §97-29-47)
Court: Union County Justice Court, New Albany, Mississippi
Plea: Not Guilty — Trial Pending
Motions Filed: 9 (May 5, 2026) + Motion for Recusal (May 10, 2026)
Federal Notices: 42 U.S.C. §1983, §1985, §1986 — served on State, County, Sheriff, MDOC
Full Case Documents: Reardon Case Hub — Document Index

Video Evidence

We The People News will continue to cover this case through trial and any federal proceedings that follow. If you have information about selective enforcement of public profanity or disorderly conduct statutes in Mississippi or elsewhere, contact us at [email protected].

“I Don’t Give a Rat’s Ass” — Mississippi Judge Uses Profanity From the Bench