Democrat-appointed San Francisco judge keeps using a racial slur in court — and no one has stopped him

A white San Francisco judge appointed by former Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown has repeatedly used the N-word in full in open court, refused Black lawyers' requests to stop, and faced no discipline, then fined the public defender who complained.

San Francisco Superior Court Judge Harry Dorfman has drawn sustained outrage from Black public defenders for saying the racial slur aloud during proceedings, without abbreviation, across multiple cases. When one public defender asked him to stop, Dorfman refused on the spot. When the city's top public defender filed a formal complaint, nothing happened. And when that same public defender later declined to appear before Dorfman's court, the judge held him in contempt and hit him with a $26,000 fine.

The sequence of events reads less like accountability and more like retaliation, and it landed squarely on the people who raised the concern in the first place.

Dorfman said the full slur, then told a lawyer to say it too

The New York Post reported that during one court case, Dorfman quoted a man who had uttered the slur, and repeated the word in full, without abbreviating it. In a separate case, a defense lawyer brought up the term, and Dorfman told the lawyer to say the complete word aloud.

When a public defender asked the court to stop using the slur, Dorfman shut the request down immediately.

The San Francisco Chronicle reported deputy public defender Phoenix Streets' reaction to hearing the word from the bench. Streets, who is Black, said the experience dredged up memories from his childhood in Beebe, Arkansas:

"It took me back to my childhood in Beebe, Ark., when white men in pickup trucks armed with rifles would drive by our house yelling 'n, s' and racist chants."

Streets also recalled a specific incident from his youth:

"Or the father of one of my white friends saying to me, 'You're pretty smart for a n,. You must have some white in you.'"

Dorfman's defense was blunt. He told the courtroom that the slur was part of the case record and therefore acceptable to say aloud, without modification. His exact words, as reported: "No, no, no... These are the facts of the case. If it's the evidence in the case, it's not casting any insults or offense to anybody."

Courts across the country handle evidence containing slurs every day. Judges routinely refer to such language by abbreviation, by euphemism, or by directing attorneys to the written record, without speaking the full word in open court. Dorfman chose a different path, and when challenged, doubled down.

A formal complaint in 2022 produced zero consequences for the judge

San Francisco Public Defender Mano Raju filed a formal complaint against Dorfman in 2022. The complaint stated that Dorfman had used the slur "in full in open court" and showed no "awareness of the trauma its utterance inflicts and without consideration of alternatives that could ensure a sufficient record."

No action was taken against the judge. Raju's office also requested intervention from the city's Superior Court. That request, too, went nowhere. Dorfman remained on the bench, his conduct unchanged. In a system that demands accountability from those who wield legal authority, the silence was conspicuous.

Jerry Brown, the Democratic former governor, had appointed Dorfman to the bench in 2013. Nearly a decade later, the judge's conduct drew a formal complaint, and the system built to police judicial behavior produced nothing.

Instead of discipline, Dorfman fined the public defender $26,000

Rather than face consequences himself, Dorfman turned the tables. In March, the judge held Raju in contempt of court after Raju declined to represent 26 people. Dorfman imposed a fine of $1,000 per person, totaling $26,000.

The reason Raju declined those representations is not spelled out in available reporting. But the timeline is hard to ignore: the public defender who filed a complaint about a judge's conduct was the one who ended up sanctioned by that same judge.

Raju appealed. A few weeks after the fine was imposed, the First District Court of Appeal issued an order blocking its enforcement. The appellate court's intervention at least halted the financial penalty, but it did not address the underlying conduct that started the dispute. Questions about officials who defy or circumvent judicial norms are not limited to one courtroom in San Francisco, but this case is a sharp example.

No one with authority has held Dorfman accountable

The pattern here is plain. A judge used a racial slur repeatedly in open court. Black lawyers told him it was harmful. He refused to stop. A formal complaint was filed. Nothing happened. The complaining party was then fined $26,000. An appeals court had to step in to block the fine.

At every stage, the system protected the judge and penalized the people who objected. The complaint process failed. The Superior Court declined to act. The only institution that intervened, the appellate court, addressed only the financial sanction, not the underlying behavior.

Open questions remain. What exactly happened to the 2022 complaint? Why did Raju decline to represent those 26 individuals? Is the contempt finding connected to the slur controversy, or was it a separate matter that happened to target the same public defender who filed the complaint? None of these questions have public answers, and the lack of transparency only deepens the problem.

Judicial conduct commissions exist for exactly this kind of situation, a judge whose behavior in the courtroom causes documented harm and who refuses to change course even after being formally asked. When those bodies fail to act, the message to every lawyer and defendant who walks into that courtroom is unmistakable: the judge answers to no one. That kind of legal system operating beyond meaningful check should concern anyone who values fair courts.

Accountability is not a partisan principle, or at least it shouldn't be. When a Democrat-appointed judge uses a racial slur from the bench, punishes the lawyer who objects, and faces no discipline from any institution charged with overseeing his conduct, the system isn't working. It's just protecting its own.