New Jersey Municipal Judge Faces Ethics Complaint Over Attire at State Judicial Conference

After wearing Palestine-related attire at a professional judicial conference last year, a New Jersey municipal court judge is facing an ethics charge. The state’s judicial monitoring officials said the outfit may have sent a political message during a delicate international war.

New Jersey’s Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct filed the complaint against Steven Brister, a part-time East Orange municipal court judge and acting Newark and Orange judge. Brister wore a baseball cap with the Palestinian flag and “Palestine” to the annual Municipal Division Conference in June 2025, according to the allegation. A black-and-white striped keffiyeh, a Middle Eastern scarf, covered his neck and shoulders.

A Bergen County hotel hosted over 400 municipal court judges and officials from throughout the state for the two-day conference. Professional training workshops and discussions on legal problems and court procedures are held for court staff.

After the conference started, several guests reportedly criticized Brister’s outfit. Some participants saw the clothes as political, especially given the Middle East situation, according to the complaint. Judicial officials later stated that flying the Palestinian flag and keffiyeh could be understood as a political statement supporting Palestine.

After objections, Brister’s supervising judge requested him to remove the hat after the conference’s beginning. According to the allegation, Brister declined. He reportedly indicated he would only remove the hat if the conference ordered everyone to remove it.

Another senior municipal judge, who had known Brister professionally and socially for almost three decades, contacted him and repeated the supervising judge’s request. The complaint claims Brister refused to remove the cap again. He wore it all day.

Investigators later questioned Brister about the event. He told detectives he chose the hat because it complemented his clothes that day, according to the complaint. He denied that the cap or keffiyeh sent a political statement.

Brister also owns and wears multiple keffiyehs. He told investigators in October 2025 that he wears the scarf for spiritual and religious reasons. He also said his conference keffiyeh complemented his outfit that day.

Brister explained more to his supervising judge following the conference. He claimed he wanted a brimmed hat because it rained that morning. He said he saw the hat first on his shelf. The judge was told he wore the keffiyeh because he felt the conference room could be cold.

Despite these justifications, the Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct claims Brister breached multiple judicial conduct norms. His actions may have violated three court ethics canons, according to the lawsuit. These guidelines compel judges to operate ethically, avoid political action that could damage public trust in the courts, and prevent situations that appear improper.

Judges must remain impartial within and outside the courtroom. Ethics norms guarantee that the public views the judiciary as fair and impartial, especially on political or sensitive subjects.

Brister has been disciplined by the courts before. In 2019, the same committee charged him with misconduct for comments made in a Newark municipal court domestic violence case. Brister advised a domestic violence suspect to treat women “like a feather” rather than punch them like boxers when agitated. He also thought such actions showed a man was “in control.”

Brister later admitted the comments were wrong despite his good intentions. The New Jersey Supreme Court, which supervises judge discipline, heard the case. Brister received a 30-day bench suspension in 2021.

Current conference attire complaint will go to judicial discipline. The Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct decides whether to charge judges after hearing complaints. If infractions are found, the New Jersey Supreme Court can impose reprimands, suspensions, or other punishments.

The case emphasizes the rigorous neutrality and professional behavior requirements for judges. Judicial ethics regulations underscore that even the appearance of political message can raise impartiality concerns, especially when judges attend official professional gatherings with other court officials.

While the complaint begins the disciplinary review process, future processes will decide any consequences.