On Tuesday, March 10, 2026, the New Jersey chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-NJ) condemned a formal ethics complaint filed against Judge Steven Brister, a part-time municipal court judge in East Orange who also serves in Newark and Orange. The complaint was filed by the Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct (ACJC).

The complaint, dated March 4, 2026, alleges that Judge Brister violated judicial conduct rules at a judicial conference in June 2025 by wearing a keffiyeh and a hat bearing the word “Palestine.”

According to the ACJC complaint, at the annual Municipal Division Conference on June 9, 2025, Judge Brister wore a black baseball cap with the Palestinian flag and the word “Palestine,” along with a black and white checkered keffiyeh. The complaint states that after some attendees voiced their disapproval, the presiding judge asked Brister to remove the hat, but Brister declined, saying he would only remove the cap if all attendees were asked to remove their headgear. In October 2025, Judge Brister testified before the ACJC that he did not view the attire as a political statement and that he wore the keffiyeh for religious and spiritual reasons.

Prior to the complaint, CAIR-NJ had submitted a letter to the ACJC in November 2025, urging the committee to refrain from pursuing formal charges. They argued that Judge Brister’s attire was a religious expression consistent with his Islamic faith, not prohibited political activity. The letter emphasized the religious significance of the keffiyeh and similar head coverings in Islamic tradition, noting its roots in the Sunnah, the example of the Prophet Muhammad, and its recognition among Muslims, including African American Muslims.

In a statement, CAIR-NJ Staff Attorney Ramin Zareian said that filing a formal ethics complaint against Judge Brister is deeply troubling and sets a dangerous precedent for religious and cultural expression within the judiciary. Zareian argued that the keffiyeh has deep significance for Muslims worldwide and that characterizing it as inherently political reveals an alarming double standard, especially when similar expressions of faith from other religions are accepted without question. CAIR-NJ stands firmly with Judge Brister and will continue to defend the right of Muslim Americans to express their faith without fear of professional retaliation.

CAIR-NJ maintains that Canon 7 of the New Jersey Code of Judicial Conduct, which prohibits judges from engaging in political activity, was not designed to restrict expressions of religious faith, moral conscience, or humanitarian solidarity. The organization argues that “Palestine” is a geographic and spiritual term referring to a land sacred to Islam, Christianity, and Judaism, and that concern for Palestine among Muslims is primarily a religious and humanitarian matter, not a partisan political stance.

CAIR-NJ warns that treating Muslim religious and cultural symbols as inherently political while regarding analogous expressions from other faith traditions as devotional risks unequal treatment and erodes public confidence in an inclusive judiciary. The organization calls on the ACJC and the New Jersey Supreme Court to dismiss the complaint and to affirm that expressions of religious and cultural identity do not constitute violations of judicial ethics.

 

 

Source: CAIR