On Monday, March 2, 2026, the New Jersey Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct filed a formal complaint against Steven Brister, a municipal court judge serving in East Orange, Newark, and Orange. The complaint, docketed as ACJC 2025-491, alleges that Brister violated the Code of Judicial Conduct during a training conference.

The incident occurred on June 9, 2025, during the annual Municipal Division Conference in Bergen County. Brister attended the conference wearing a black baseball cap with the flag of Palestine embroidered on the front, alongside the word “Palestine.” He also wore a black and white checkered keffiyeh around his neck and shoulders.

According to the complaint, Brister’s attire was interpreted by attendees as a political statement in support of Palestine, given the ongoing conflict in the region. Following the plenary session, the acting municipal presiding judge for the Essex Vicinage informed Brister that complaints had been received and that some attendees were offended. A request was made for him to remove the baseball cap, but Brister refused unless all attendees were required to remove their headgear.

During a subsequent telephone conversation and text message exchange with his presiding judge, Brister stated that he chose the hat because it was raining and he wanted a brimmed hat. He added that he wore the keffiyeh because he might have gotten cold.

In an interview on October 24, 2025, Brister told the Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct that he wore the baseball cap because it “matched [his] outfit” and that he did not view either the cap or the keffiyeh as a political statement. He also stated that he wore the keffiyeh for “spiritual and religious reasons.”

The Advisory Committee alleges that Brister’s actions violated Canon 7, Rule 7(A) of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which prohibits judges from engaging in political speech. They also claim that his insubordination in refusing to remove his hat at the request of his presiding judge demonstrated a failure to conform to the high standards expected of judges, thereby impugning the integrity of the Judiciary, in violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.1, and Canon 2, Rule 2.1 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

A copy of the original filing can be found here.