admin
The Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct has taken the extraordinary step of recommending that Municipal Court Judge Britt J. Simon be removed from the bench. The committee’s majority says his comments in several truancy hearings — including threats to summon immigration agents and to separate families — crossed ethical lines. This month’s presentment now sends the matter to the New Jersey Supreme Court for its own review.
What the committee says happened
The committee’s presentment rests on hearing transcripts in which Judge Simon addressed truant students and their parents and used threats about deportation and child-protective actions. The record shows blunt lines to juveniles and their families that the committee called improper and that it said created the appearance of ethnic or national-origin bias. The ACJC concluded those exchanges violated the Code of Judicial Conduct and “renders his continued service on the bench untenable,” while a minority on the committee recommended a lesser penalty.
How Judge Simon explains himself
Simon does not deny he used harsh rhetoric. He says he meant the threats as empty bluster — a “stick” to get kids back in school when other tools failed. He argued he was responding to a broken truancy enforcement system and a lack of resources. The committee found his explanations inadequate and said he showed too little contrition, especially because municipal truancy proceedings are aimed at parents, not the children, and immigration status is generally off-limits unless directly relevant to the case.
Why conservatives should care — and what this case exposes
This is not just about one judge’s bad choice of words. It is also about a system that punishes bluntness while offering no real remedies for chronic truancy. Conservatives can and should condemn threats of deportation toward vulnerable kids — that was wrong — while also asking why judges feel forced to yell into a void. The committee split shows the punishment question is not cut-and-dried. If the court moves to remove Simon, it will send a message about judicial tone and bias. And if it merely punishes the symptom, we’ll be right back where we started: a court system with limits on enforcement and schools without muscle to address truancy.
What comes next
The ACJC’s presentment is a formal step, not an automatic ouster. The New Jersey Supreme Court will review the record and decide whether to institute removal proceedings, accept a lesser sanction, or take another course. Meanwhile, lawmakers and local officials should stop acting shocked and start fixing the root problems — fund truancy prevention, clarify what judges may lawfully say in court, and give communities real options for holding parents and students accountable. Threats aren’t the answer. Practical reform is.
