Controversial Judge Carlos Acosta; Wrong Choice for Union City Court.

The decision to return Carlos Acosta to a position of judicial authority has once again raised serious questions about judgment, ethics, and public confidence in Union City’s government.

This is not about political parties or personalities. It is about the integrity of our courts.

The disciplinary history of Carlos Acosta is not a rumor or political talking point—it is a matter of public record. The Supreme Court of New Jersey suspended him from the practice of law after findings that included conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, gross neglect, a pattern of neglect, lack of diligence, and failure to expedite legal matters. Those findings speak for themselves.

Judges are expected to meet the highest ethical standards because the public entrusts them with decisions affecting people’s liberty, property, and constitutional rights. When an attorney has previously been disciplined for misconduct of this nature, it is entirely reasonable for the public to question whether that individual should again serve on the bench.

Mayor Brian Stack also deserves scrutiny for his role in judicial appointments within Union City.

As both the Mayor of Union City and a New Jersey State Senator who serves as Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Stack occupies one of the most influential positions in New Jersey government regarding the judicial system. While the Senate Judiciary Committee does not appoint municipal judges, it plays a significant role in reviewing nominees to many judicial and prosecutorial positions throughout the State. That makes public confidence in his judgment especially important.

If reports are accurate that Carlos Acosta will not ultimately return as Union City’s Chief Municipal Judge after initially being selected, that decision raises an obvious question: what changed?

If concerns about public confidence or Acosta’s disciplinary history ultimately caused the appointment not to move forward, those concerns existed from the very beginning. They were matters of public record before any appointment was announced.

Public officials should exercise careful judgment before making appointments to positions of public trust. Judicial appointments should strengthen confidence in our courts—not create controversy that could have been avoided.

Citizens deserve transparency regarding how judicial candidates are evaluated. What standards are applied? How are prior disciplinary findings weighed? What assurances are given to the public that ethics and integrity remain the highest priorities?

These are fair questions, not political attacks.

The people of Union City deserve judges whose integrity is beyond question. The judiciary depends on public confidence, and that confidence is earned through accountability, transparency, and sound judgment.

Regardless of political affiliation, every resident should agree on one principle: our courts should never become the subject of avoidable controversy because of appointments that undermine public trust.

Our justice system functions best when the public believes those who sit in judgment have demonstrated the highest ethical character. That standard should never be compromised.