The Richard J. Hughes Justice Complex, where the New Jersey Supreme Court is convened, in Trenton, N.J. (Google Maps).
A county judge in New Jersey is facing removal from the bench over a series of inflammatory threats to have Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) deport truant students and their families.
In February 2025, Britt J. Simon was suspended from the Bound Brook Municipal Court over what he termed "empty threats" and other "horribly unpleasant" comments during school attendance hearings.
Last week, the Supreme Court of New Jersey Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct issued a recommendation that Simon be "removed from judicial office for his violations" of judicial ethical standards.
"This recommendation considers the seriousness of Respondent's ethical infractions, and the aggravating factors present in this case, which justify the recommended quantum of discipline," the 32-page presentment signed by a majority of the committee reads.
A formal complaint was filed against Simon, who also served as judge for Somerset, Hunterdon, and Warren counties, in July 2025, over his comments in Bound Brook truancy court.
"I had no idea what to do with them," Simon admitted during the second installment of marathon hearings before the committee over his comments during three truancy hearings spanning August 2024 and January 2025, according to the New Jersey Monitor.
During each of those hearings, Simon aggressively questioned and threatened students and family members about their immigration status.
"Look at your mother, get ready to say goodbye to her," he told one 16-year-old boy. "Go ahead. Look at her. Look at her now. You want to say goodbye to her? Because once you're deported, you're gone and you can't come back again. Get out of my courtroom."
In another instance, Simon told a 14-year-old, "You miss another day of school and I'm going to personally have ICE here to pick you up."
In August 2025, the jurist admitted to some of the allegations against him in a 33-page answer filed with the committee.
"Seeing no value in levying a fine against [the boy's] mother, who by all accounts was not the reason for [the boy's] truancy, Judge Simon opted for strong speech, raising his voice, and empty threats against [the boy] in hopes that he would correct his behavior," the reply reads.
In a separate email attached to the defense document, Simon personally explained himself to Presiding Judge Gerard Shamey, which is how the county courts became aware of the issues.
That email reads, at length:
I have tried speaking to the kids, then yelling, then empty threats. Nothing works. Yesterday I yelled at 2 kids. Both mothers (illegal in country) were sobbing. The kids were emotionally flat. I warned the kids that bringing the government into their home could result in their mothers being deported all because they drew attention of government and didn't do what they were supposed to do by going to school. Kids seemed unfazed. We are walking these kids into being dropouts. Carrots don't work. We need a stick!!!
In its June 10 ruling, an overwhelming majority of the committee was unimpressed with Simon's defense of his actions.
"Respondent's conduct in these several matters, which includes threats of deportation to unrepresented minors and forced family separation, coupled with Respondent's demonstrated failure to appreciate the impropriety of this conduct or to fully accept responsibility for it, constitutes significant violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct that irreparably impugns Respondent's integrity and impartiality and renders his continued service on the bench untenable," the decision reads.
To that end, the committee "respectfully recommends the Supreme Court institute proceedings to remove Respondent from judicial office."
A minority of the committee suggested Simon's punishment – or "appropriate quantum of discipline" – should be a public censure or the extant suspension of his judicial duties due to his "short tenure" on the bench and his lack of disciplinary history.
The majority flatly rejected this approach.
"[W]hile this is the first judicial misconduct complaint filed against Respondent, it implicates an egregious disregard for the judicial office and his ethical obligations as a jurist," the decision goes on. "Such misconduct necessarily and seriously undermines the public's confidence in Respondent's ability to serve as a judge and to avoid future excesses."
The majority also criticizes Simon for his own responses – ultimately finding them less than contrite under the circumstances.
"Respondent, while acknowledging he 'got it wrong' when adjudicating these truancy matters and recognizing his ethical obligation 'to act with patience, dignity and courtesy,' denies any ethical impropriety in respect of his conduct in these matters," the decision reads at one point. "[Simon] remains unremorseful for his misconduct and has, in fact, refused, throughout these proceedings, to accept responsibility for his several ethical breaches. [Simon], rather, has sought, at every opportunity, to deflect responsibility for his misconduct onto his Presiding Judge and the Judiciary generally."