New Jersey Judge Defends ICE Remarks as “Scare Tactics” During Misconduct Hearing
A municipal court judge in New Jersey, who was previously suspended over controversial remarks made during truancy hearings, told a judicial advisory panel that his threats to involve U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement were never meant to be acted upon and were instead intended to pressure students into attending school.
Judge Britt J. Simon, who serves in Bound Brook, appeared before the state’s Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct for a second hearing, where he addressed allegations of misconduct tied to comments made in 2024 and early 2025. Simon had already been suspended without pay earlier in February 2025 as the investigation into his behavior continued.
During his testimony, Simon admitted that he mishandled several truancy cases and described his actions as the result of “absolute frustration.” He explained that his approach was driven by concern for the long-term consequences facing the children involved, stating that he was attempting to intervene in a way he believed might push them back toward school attendance.
The judge also claimed he lacked proper training or guidance on how to manage truancy cases effectively. According to his statement, he had repeatedly sought direction but instead relied on observing how other judges handled similar situations, some of whom he said used similarly strict methods. However, members of the advisory panel challenged this reasoning, emphasizing that respect and professionalism should not depend on formal training.
Central to the complaint against Simon are allegations that he used inappropriate, hostile, and discriminatory language toward both minors and their parents during court proceedings. In one instance from August 2024, he directed harsh remarks at a juvenile, including personal insults and comments suggesting negative consequences for the child’s family. In another case in January 2025, he warned a 14-year-old student from El Salvador that continued absences could result in immigration enforcement action.
The January incident occurred shortly after the inauguration of Donald Trump for a second term, during which Simon reportedly told the student that a “new sheriff” was in charge and threatened to involve federal immigration authorities if the student missed additional school days.
Addressing these statements, Simon told the panel that the threats were not genuine and described them as “empty threats” intended to deter absenteeism. He suggested that, in his view, strict or uncomfortable methods were sometimes necessary to achieve compliance, stating that compassion in such cases “isn’t always pretty.”
The advisory committee’s formal complaint argues that Simon’s conduct crossed professional boundaries, showing bias and a lack of judicial temperament expected in a courtroom, particularly when dealing with minors. The panel also raised concerns about the potential impact such remarks could have on vulnerable families, especially those with immigration concerns.
During the hearing, Simon indicated that his perspective on handling truancy cases has since changed. He expressed the belief that such matters may not belong in municipal court and said that, moving forward, he would be inclined to dismiss cases where parents demonstrate genuine efforts to ensure their children attend school.
Under state law in New Jersey, parents of children between the ages of six and sixteen can face financial penalties if their children fail to attend school regularly. These fines can range from $25 to $100 per day, depending on the circumstances. The law places responsibility on parents, but the enforcement process requires careful handling within the judicial system.
Simon, who has practiced law since 2002, began serving as a part-time judge in Bridgewater in early 2023 before becoming a full-time judge in Bound Brook in 2024. His future on the bench now depends on the outcome of the ongoing disciplinary process.
At the conclusion of the latest hearing, attorneys involved in the case were directed to submit written arguments outlining their positions on the charges and recommending appropriate disciplinary action. Those submissions are due by mid-April, after which the advisory committee is expected to move closer to a final decision.
The case highlights broader concerns about judicial conduct, accountability, and the balance between enforcing the law and maintaining fairness and respect in courtrooms, particularly when dealing with young individuals and sensitive family situations.
Sources
Official information referenced from New Jersey state judicial proceedings and the Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct.
