On Thursday, April 23, 2026, Municipal Court Judge Steven Brister filed an answer to a complaint before the New Jersey Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct concerning his attire at a judicial conference. The formal answer addresses allegations related to Brister wearing a keffiyeh and a baseball cap with the word “Palestine” and a country flag on it.
In his response, Brister admits to wearing the attire but denies that it constituted a political statement or violated judicial conduct standards. He explains that he wore the keffiyeh for religious purposes and to stay warm, and the cap to protect against the elements and for stylistic reasons. Brister acknowledges that wearing a keffiyeh with the cap may have been offensive to some, though he did not intend to convey any offense.
Brister’s answer emphasizes that his attire was not intended as a political statement. He notes that he is a member of the New Jersey Judiciary and an observant Muslim who often wears traditional Muslim attire when not on the bench. He also mentions that there is no dress code for the annual conference and that he has worn at least one article of Muslim attire since 2017 when attending.
The response also addresses the allegation that Brister’s cap stated, “Free Palestine.” He clarifies that the cap only had the word “Palestine” and a country flag on it. He believes the misinterpretation of his hat led to the complaint.
Brister’s answer cites a letter from the Council on American-Islamic Relations, New Jersey (CAIR-NJ), which argues that his attire was a faith-based expression of humility and identity, consistent with religious expression and judicial impartiality.
In his defense, Brister asserts his First Amendment rights to freedom of speech, expression, and religion. He argues that his attire did not violate any Canons of Judicial Conduct and that judges are entitled to First Amendment protections. He also claims that punishing him for wearing a keffiyeh would be discriminatory based on his religion and violate his First Amendment rights.
Brister seeks dismissal of the complaint with prejudice, contending that the allegations are false and that he has been publicly maligned as a result. He states he was never instructed to remove his cap by the Acting Presiding Judge Municipal (APMCJ). He claims that he is the target of viewpoint discrimination because others were allowed to wear headgear.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
