A lawyer has filed a formal complaint against United States District Judge Roy Altman, alleging that a pattern of strongly pro-Israel public statements — including describing the Palestinian keffiyeh as a 'terror scarf' — demonstrates anti-Palestinian bias that renders him unfit to preside fairly over cases involving Palestinian or pro-Palestinian litigants.
The complaint, filed this week with the Eleventh Circuit Judicial Council, centers on Judge Altman's repeated public expressions of support for Israel and criticism of Palestinian activism. The lawyer bringing the complaint, who has pending cases before the judge, argues that Altman's remarks violate the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, which requires a judge to 'be impartial' and to 'avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.'
Among the statements cited in the complaint is Altman's characterization of the keffiyeh — a traditional Palestinian scarf that has become a global symbol of Palestinian identity and resistance — as a 'terror scarf.' The judge also reportedly suggested that pro-Palestinian protest on university campuses should be quashed, and has referred to those supporting Palestine as 'the other side' in a conflict he appeared to define in binary, partisan terms.
Judge Altman, appointed to the federal bench by President Donald Trump in 2019 and confirmed on a largely party-line vote, has long been known for his outspoken views on Middle East affairs. He has spoken at pro-Israel events, published op-eds backing Israeli government policies, and maintained close ties with organizations that advocate for a hardline Israeli stance.
In response to the complaint, a spokesperson for the Eleventh Circuit said the judicial council 'is reviewing the matter in accordance with established procedures' but declined further comment. Altman's chambers did not respond to requests for comment.
Legal ethics experts say the complaint raises serious questions about the boundaries of a judge's extrajudicial speech. 'Judges are not stripped of their First Amendment rights, but they must be careful not to signal bias that undermines faith in their impartiality,' said Gabe Roth, executive director of Fix the Court, a judicial accountability group. 'Calling a cultural symbol a 'terror scarf' does not inspire confidence that a judge can fairly hear a case involving a Palestinian party.'
Supporters of Altman argue that his statements reflect a sincerely held view of the conflict and that many of his remarks have been mischaracterized. They point to his lengthy record of enforcing the law and note that no court has ever found him biased in a ruling.
The complaint is unlikely to lead to immediate disciplinary action. Judicial misconduct complaints often take months or years to resolve, and the threshold for removal is extremely high. However, the controversy adds to a growing debate over judicial activism and bias as the United States faces increasingly polarizing legal battles over the Israel-Palestine conflict.
For Palestinians and their advocates, the case underscores a broader concern: that the federal judiciary — overwhelmingly appointed by presidents from both parties — may not be equipped to adjudicate disputes in a conflict as charged as the one in the Middle East. Critics argue that judges like Altman represent a dangerous overlap between political advocacy and judicial responsibility.
The complaint may also trigger calls for recusal in any future case before Altman involving Palestinian litigants or issues, though such motions are typically decided by the judge himself.
Analysis
Why This Matters
- Direct impact on litigants: Palestinian and pro-Palestinian individuals or organizations who appear before Judge Altman may face a judge who has publicly displayed hostility toward their identity and cause.
- Broader judicial integrity: The case tests the boundaries of judicial free speech versus the requirement of impartiality, with potential ripple effects for how judges are held accountable for extrajudicial statements.
- Precedent for Israel-Palestine litigation: As more cases around campus protests, boycotts, and Palestinian rights reach federal courts, the impartiality of judges on both sides of the issue becomes a central concern.
Background
Judge Roy Altman was nominated to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida by President Trump in 2019 and confirmed by a 57-43 vote. Before his elevation to the bench, he served as a federal prosecutor and was known for his conservative legal views. Since joining the bench, he has taken public stances on the Israel-Palestine conflict that go beyond typical judicial commentary.
The keffiyeh has been a symbol of Palestinian identity since the 1930s and is widely worn in the West Bank and diaspora. In recent years, particularly after the October 7, 2023 Hamas attacks and the subsequent Gaza war, the garment has been a flashpoint in debates over free speech and anti-Palestinian discrimination. Some U.S. officials and commentators have conflated wearing the keffiyeh with support for terrorism.
The complaint invokes the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980, which allows any person to file a complaint against a federal judge for conduct that is 'prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts.' The Eleventh Circuit Judicial Council, which oversees judges in Florida, Georgia, and Alabama, will investigate and determine whether a violation occurred.
Key Perspectives
[Palestinian Rights Advocates and the Complainant]: Argue that Altman's statements are not merely political but reflect an entrenched bias that violates judicial ethics rules. They say calling the keffiyeh a 'terror scarf' is akin to declaring that an entire cultural identity is linked to terrorism, making impartiality impossible.
[Judge Altman and His Supporters]: Maintain that Altman's views are sincerely held policy positions on a foreign conflict, not evidence of personal bias against any party. They contend that judges can hold strong public opinions on historical or international issues, and that no concrete ruling has been shown to be influenced by those views.
[Legal Ethics Experts and Civil Libertarians]: Divided. Some stress that judges must be restricted from making statements that create an appearance of bias, even on their own time. Others worry about chilling judges' free speech, particularly on matters of public concern. The American Bar Association's Model Code of Judicial Conduct permits public commentary only if it 'does not cast doubt on the judge's capacity to act impartially.'
What to Watch
- Whether Judge Altman recuses himself from any pending cases involving Palestinian parties while the complaint is investigated.
- The timeline and outcome of the Eleventh Circuit Judicial Council's review; similar complaints often take 12 to 18 months to resolve.
- Whether this triggers a wave of similar complaints against other federal judges who have made public statements on the Israel-Palestine conflict, particularly in jurisdictions where pro-Palestinian activism is high.