In a case that reads more like ideological storytelling than courtroom sentencing, an Ontario judge slashed the prison time of a convicted cocaine trafficker — not because the facts justified it, but because of the man’s race and background. The result? A mid-level dealer of a Class-A drug, already convicted of fentanyl trafficking and gun crimes, received just 12 months for his second offense — after being caught with 55 grams of cocaine while out on bail.
The reason? According to Justice Robert Horton, Roosevelt Rush deserved a reduced sentence because he is a “young black man” facing deportation.
Let that sink in.
In a ruling that almost sounds like it was ghostwritten by a diversity, equity, and inclusion consultant, Horton cited a lengthy list of “mitigating circumstances”: systemic discrimination, fatherhood, financial struggles, and the “collateral consequence” of possible deportation. In short, identity politics has now replaced equal justice under the law.
Rush is no stranger to the criminal justice system. By the time he appeared for this sentencing, he was already serving a six-year sentence for fentanyl trafficking and firearms charges. And yet, while awaiting sentencing for those charges, he was caught with a significant quantity of cocaine — enough to clearly mark him as a trafficker.
Judge Horton acknowledged that Rush’s actions were serious and for-profit — not addiction-driven — and even conceded that cocaine is a devastating drug that warrants “deterrence and denunciation.” And yet, he cut the sentence in half. Why? Because Rush “grew up in a dangerous neighborhood,” “saw gun violence,” and turned to drug dealing after losing a job during the pandemic. The judge even went so far as to praise Rush for being able to “pay bills,” “buy bikes for his kids,” and “get a car” through drug money.
Apparently, if your crime funds basic necessities, it softens the blow to society.
The most staggering part of Horton’s decision is the direct invocation of race as a sentencing factor. The judge cited a Race and Cultural Assessment that argued Rush’s “criminality” was shaped by his experience as a Black man in “western culture.” Horton then proceeded to generalize that Black men earn 75% of white men’s wages and that this “systemic” reality is what drives criminal behavior.
This isn’t just judicial activism. It’s race-based sentencing — something that should concern anyone who believes in equal treatment before the law. If a white man were to stand before the same court, with the same record and the same crimes, does anyone seriously believe he’d be treated with the same leniency? If the answer is no — and it is — then we’ve abandoned justice for ideology.
More troubling still is that this ruling sends a message to actual victims of drug crime — the communities ravaged by fentanyl, crack cocaine, and gang activity. These neighborhoods, often filled with struggling families of all backgrounds, aren’t strengthened by judicial compassion for dealers. They’re endangered by it. Judges aren’t social workers. They’re the final firewall between crime and consequence. When that firewall collapses, the most vulnerable pay the price.
Yes, systemic issues exist. Yes, people face difficult circumstances. But we do not fix injustice by creating new injustices. A courtroom is not the place to wage ideological war or score points in a cultural debate. It’s where the law is supposed to be blind — to color, to class, to narrative.
