A federal judge in the United States is facing a formal complaint over anti-Palestinian comments and alleged association with Islamophobic groups, in a case that highlights growing concern about possible pro-Israel bias in the judicial system.

Florida lawyer Katherine Giannamore filed the judicial complaint against District Judge Roy Altman earlier this month, accusing him of eroding “public confidence in the integrity, impartiality, and independence of the federal judiciary”.

The complaint, filed with the Eleventh Circuit Court, also says Altman used judicial resources to promote Israel, including by making media appearances from his chambers in Miami.

“Since at least April 2026, Judge Altman has consistently engaged in this conduct during business hours, broadcasting himself live from chambers and has utilized law clerks during public talks during business hours,” the complaint reads.

“These activities have been persistent, almost daily and spanned several months.”

‘The terrorism scarf’

The complaint points to several examples of what it considers to be worrying behaviour.

In April, for instance, Judge Altman appeared on a podcast with the Middle East Forum, a right-wing group whose stated mission is to combat “the infrastructure of lawful Islamism”. During the interview, he called the keffiyeh, a symbol of Palestinian identity, a “terrorism scarf”.

In an interview with Al Jazeera, Giannamore pointed to such remarks as a reason for concern.

“This kind of blatant use of the judicial office for your own political aspirations or your beliefs, it’s bad for the judiciary. It’s bad for public opinion as far as the legitimacy of the judiciary,” Giannamore said.

She acknowledged that the complaint is unlikely to lead to a reprimand against Altman, but she said it was important to raise the issue.

Federal judges are appointed for life. Judicial misconduct complaints go to the chief judge of a court of appeals, who can either dismiss them or appoint a special committee to investigate the claims.

In rare cases, the complaints can lead to sanctions, including the decision to suspend case assignments to a given judge or a request for voluntary resignation.

Giannamore believes complaints like hers can help spark a discussion about acceptable behaviour within the judicial system, particularly for lifelong office-holders.

“It’s important to bring awareness to that, and maybe give them a moment to take a step back and say, ‘Is this worth it? Is this something that we accept? And would we accept it if it was other issues that a judge was using the office to speak on?’” Giannamore said.

Altman, a staunch supporter of Israel who was appointed by President Donald Trump in 2019, is currently promoting a self-published book defending the US ally.

During his remarks with the Middle East Forum in April, he explained that he had been touring college campuses and churches to dismiss accusations of rights abuses against Israel, which has been carrying out a genocidal war on Gaza.

The judge uses “Jews” and “Israel” interchangeably throughout his talks.

“I say on college campuses, ‘You think you’re counterculture? You think you’re cool and unique because you wear the terrorism scarf, the keffiyeh, and you chant against the Jews? Get in line, get a ticket. You’re the most mainstream, boring thing history has ever seen,’” Altman said.

That was one of several incidents in which the judge demonised the symbol of Palestinian nationalism.

“At Yale Law School, for example, in three years, I graduated in 2007, I never once saw a single person wearing a keffiyeh,” he said on a recent podcast.

“And so that tells you that, at one of the most liberal law schools on the planet, not one student thought it was appropriate to wear a scarf that is a symbol of terrorism and the deaths — the violent deaths of thousands and thousands of innocent Jews.”

Altman is also a prolific social media user, and most of his posts are about Israel. He has also made frequent appearances on podcasts and in YouTube clips.

In one interview, he declared that “there is no distinction” between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism.

The judge’s pro-Israel advocacy at times drifts into comments that could be seen as hostile towards Arabs and Muslims.

“The real geo-strategic conflict here isn’t seven million Jews against six million Palestinians,” he said in June.

“It’s seven million Jews surrounded by two billion Muslims — hundreds of millions of whom have been raised to believe that divine providence requires them to devote their lives to the destruction of that teeny, tiny Jewish state.”

The judge did not respond to Al Jazeera’s request for comment by the time of publication.

Israel trips

It is highly unusual for a judge to be so outspoken about a divisive political issue.

Altman’s advocacy comes at a time when the federal judiciary is assessing several cases relating to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, including Trump’s push to deport student activists who protested against the war on Gaza.

Altman often promotes a travel programme by the World Jewish Congress to take fellow judges on trips to Israel — visits akin to the junkets the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) gives to members of Congress.

“One of the reasons our judges in America give for why trips to Israel are so profoundly transformative for them is that, in Israel, you can feel our joint Judeo-Christian heritage, our history, our home,” he wrote in a social media post earlier this month.

According to Giannamore’s complaint, Altman said in a speech at Florida International University that he has taken 10 percent of the federal judiciary on such trips.

Such a large number of judges “coming away from foreign state-sponsored trips, where they meet with foreign political officials, is truly frightening”, the complaint said. It pointed out that some of those judges may rule on cases related to Israel.

Giannamore suggested that possible bias acquired from the “propaganda” visits to Israel may extend beyond issues related to the conflict, but to cases involving Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims more broadly.

“It goes into biases that they at least can be perceived to hold versus Palestinians, Arabs, Muslims, peace advocates,” she said.

“So if you’re taking 10 percent of the judiciary right now and they’re spread all across the country, that’s a huge number, and I think that ultimately undermines public confidence in one of our branches of government. So, it’s really bad for everyone.”