On Wednesday, January 28, 2026, the New Jersey Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct (ACJC) is set to hold a formal public hearing regarding the conduct of Municipal Court Judge Britt J. Simon.

The hearing, scheduled for 10:30 a.m. in the Supreme Court Courtroom at the Richard J. Hughes Justice Complex in Trenton, will address allegations of misconduct stemming from Simon’s handling of truancy cases in Somerset County municipal courts. The hearing will be accessible to the public via the Judiciary’s public channels page, under the “Administrative Office of the Courts” section.

The formal complaint against Judge Simon was initially filed by the ACJC on July 28, 2025, and Simon responded with an answer on August 18, 2025. The allegations against Simon, who served as a municipal judge for Bound Brook, Bridgewater, Somerville, and Raritan Borough, led to his suspension from judicial duties on February 11, 2025.

The complaint centers on claims that Simon made inappropriate and aggressive comments during truancy hearings. Specifically, he is accused of using discriminatory language and threatening to contact U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) regarding undocumented families. According to the complaint, Simon allegedly referred to students as “garbage” and “filth of the earth.” In one reported instance, he warned a 14-year-old student that continued truancy could result in ICE detaining them or their parents, allegedly stating he would “personally have ICE here to pick you up” if the student missed another day of school.

In his defense, Simon acknowledged raising his voice and using what he termed “empty threats” during the hearings. He stated that his actions were intended to motivate chronically absent students to attend school regularly. In an email to Presiding Judge Gerard Shamey, included in the filing, Simon explained that he had tried various approaches, including speaking and yelling, before resorting to what he now describes as empty threats. He maintained that his intention was to encourage attendance, not to intimidate families, and that he avoided issuing fines to low-income families, recognizing the financial burden it would place on them.

Simon’s legal team has argued that his remarks were a strategic effort to steer students back to education and that he did not receive formal training on handling truancy cases. He also claimed he sought guidance from Judge Shamey, who allegedly did not provide assistance. Simon further disputed claims that he was counseled about his conduct, citing phone records and emails as evidence that no such discussions took place.

The ACJC alleges that Simon violated several judicial conduct canons, including failing to uphold the law, exhibiting bias, and using inappropriate language. Simon has denied these charges and requested the complaint’s dismissal, asserting that his actions were driven by compassion and a desire to address truancy effectively. He described his approach as a “last-ditch effort” to connect with students emotionally and prevent further absenteeism, denying any intent to exceed his judicial authority.

A copy of the original filing can be found here.