A Jeff Davis County justice of the peace who is a defendant in a federal civil rights lawsuit appears to have endorsed a Facebook post suggesting the journalist who sued her might be involved in pedophilia, adding to questions about her conduct, judicial impartiality and history of public commentary concerning the journalist.
Screenshots obtained by Big Bend Reporter show a Facebook account belonging to Jeff Davis County Justice of the Peace Mary Ann Wagner Luedecke among seven accounts that reacted positively to a May 21 post attacking journalist David Flash, publisher of Big Bend Reporter and Texas Reporter.
The post, published by a website that has repeatedly targeted Flash and his publications, suggested without evidence that Flash might be a pedophile because his news organizations publish photographs of children.
The post also encouraged readers to leave negative reviews of Flash’s publications and criticized him for asking readers to submit positive recommendations following a negative Facebook review.
The underlying negative review similarly made unsupported accusations involving pedophilia, suggested Flash belonged on a government watch list and questioned his mental health.
There is no evidence presented in either post supporting those accusations.
The apparent endorsement is particularly troubling because Luedecke was already a named defendant in Flash’s federal civil rights lawsuit when the May 21 post appeared.
The lawsuit, filed in January 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, alleges that several Jeff Davis County officials violated Flash’s constitutional rights through retaliatory conduct and misuse of government authority.
The website responsible for the May 21 attack is also discussed in the federal litigation.
Previous Facebook comments document a history of engagement
The May 21 reaction is not the first documented instance of Luedecke’s Facebook account engaging with commentary concerning Flash or the website attacking him.
Screenshots dating to June 2023 and July 2025 show the account participating in public Facebook discussions.
In a June 22, 2023, discussion in the Fort Davis Community Chat Facebook group, an account bearing Luedecke’s name criticized a local bridge project, describing the work as a disaster and complaining about trash left behind.
The post demonstrates that the account has been used to participate in public discussions concerning local matters.
More significantly, a screenshot preserved July 1, 2025, shows the same account responding to a Facebook discussion promoting the website that has targeted Flash.
In that discussion, another participant encouraged readers to visit the website, describing it as a parody of Flash’s former publication.
Luedecke’s account responded favorably, describing the website’s material as “some good stuff” and suggesting that it presented another side of the stories.
That comment was documented more than six months before Flash filed his federal lawsuit.
The May 21 reaction, by contrast, occurred after the federal lawsuit had been filed and after Luedecke had been formally named as a defendant.
The chronology is significant because it documents favorable engagement with the website both before and after the litigation began.
While the earlier comment does not establish that Luedecke approved of every statement published by the website, it provides context for the later positive reaction to a post containing an unsupported accusation involving pedophilia.
Federal lawsuit alleges abuse of judicial authority
The social media activity comes against a backdrop of years of disputes involving Luedecke, Flash and other Jeff Davis County officials.
Flash has accused Luedecke of abusing her judicial authority, participating in retaliatory actions and contributing to efforts that harmed his reputation and news businesses.
The allegations include an October 2023 incident at the Jeff Davis County Courthouse in which Flash says Luedecke attempted to detain him after he photographed a sign outside her office.
Federal court records also recount allegations that Luedecke circulated information about Flash to law enforcement agencies and participated in communications concerning his activities as a journalist and government critic.
Flash was subsequently arrested in April 2024 on harassment and terroristic threat allegations arising from a broader conflict with county officials. The criminal proceedings and their disposition have been among the subjects of his legal challenges.
In January 2026, Flash filed a federal civil rights lawsuit naming Luedecke and other county officials.
In a July 8 ruling, U.S. District Judge David Counts allowed an abuse-of-process claim against Luedecke to proceed while dismissing several other claims without prejudice. The court also declined to grant her judicial and qualified immunity at that stage.
Those rulings did not establish that Luedecke violated Flash’s rights. The allegations remain subject to the judicial process.
The website whose post Luedecke’s account apparently endorsed is also referenced in the litigation through allegations involving other county officials and the website’s coverage of Flash.
That connection makes the apparent May 21 endorsement particularly relevant to the ongoing controversy.
Judicial conduct complaints and public confidence
Flash has also filed complaints concerning Luedecke with the Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct.
The commission is responsible for investigating allegations of misconduct involving Texas judges and determining whether disciplinary action is warranted.
Texas judges are subject to the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct, which requires them to preserve public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
Canon 2A requires judges to act in ways that promote confidence in judicial integrity and impartiality.
Canon 4A addresses activities outside the courtroom that could cast reasonable doubt on a judge’s capacity to act impartially.
Judges retain their constitutional rights to express opinions and participate in public discussion. But those rights exist alongside heightened professional obligations arising from their authority over the legal rights of others.
The distinction becomes especially important when a judge publicly engages with material targeting an individual who has filed complaints against the judge or named the judge as a defendant in litigation.
The May 21 post was not merely a disagreement over political views or journalistic coverage.
It contained an unsupported insinuation of sexual misconduct involving children, one of the most damaging allegations that can be directed against an individual.
An apparent positive reaction by a sitting judicial officer to such material raises questions about judgment, personal animosity and the appearance of impartiality.
The earlier July 2025 comment provides additional context because it demonstrates that the account had previously expressed approval of the website’s content.
A pattern deserving scrutiny
The issue is not whether Luedecke agrees with Flash’s journalism or approves of his criticism of Jeff Davis County officials.
Judges, like other citizens, are entitled to disagree with journalists and criticize news coverage.
The question is whether a sitting justice of the peace who has been accused of misusing her authority against a journalist should publicly engage with a website that repeatedly attacks that same journalist, particularly after becoming a defendant in federal litigation.
The documented social media activity spans several years, including a favorable comment about the website in 2025 and an apparent endorsement of an inflammatory personal attack in May 2026.
Luedecke’s own campaign-related Facebook activity also emphasizes her commitment to integrity, honesty, respect and equal justice.
In a March 4 campaign message, her account pledged to continue serving county residents with those principles and an unwavering commitment to the law.
The contrast between those publicly stated principles and the apparent endorsement of an unsupported accusation against a legal adversary raises legitimate questions about the standards expected of an elected judicial officer.
The screenshots do not independently establish that Luedecke personally made each interaction or that she intended to endorse every allegation contained in the May 21 post. A formal ethics determination would require examination of the full circumstances.
Nevertheless, the account’s documented history of engaging with the website, combined with Luedecke’s involvement in litigation brought by Flash, makes the apparent endorsement a matter of public interest.
A judge’s obligation to preserve confidence in the judiciary does not end when court adjourns.
And when a sitting justice of the peace appears to endorse a post suggesting that a person who has sued her might be involved in pedophilia, the public is entitled to ask whether that conduct is consistent with the impartiality and restraint expected of the judiciary.
