Judge Juli Mathew welcomed a teenage witness without a robe on a calm Wednesday in a Texas juvenile courtroom. She was dressed in a basic navy suit. Despite its small size, the gesture conveyed a lot. According to Mathew, taking off the robe gives kids a sense of security and inclusion, two things that centuries-old customs don’t always support.
A subtle change is taking place in courtrooms across the country. More judges are purposefully leaving their robes on the hanger in favor of more casual clothing. This subdued uprising is not motivated by conceit. It is about transparency, connection, and—perhaps most importantly—rethinking the true nature of judicial authority.
| Topic | Details |
|---|---|
| Issue | Some U.S. judges are choosing not to wear robes in court |
| Motivations | Emphasis on accessibility, transparency, individuality, and practicality |
| Traditional Arguments | Robes symbolize neutrality, authority, and judicial unity |
| Notable Commentary | A.L. Nielson (Yale Journal), California Judges Association, NJC surveys |
| Broader Implication | A shift in how justice is perceived and delivered in public spaces |
The classic robe has long exuded gravitas with its austere black polyester design. Many see it as an outward sign of fairness and respect. Wearing it means letting go of one’s individuality and assuming a role designed to uphold blind justice. According to the California Judges Association, it encourages people to concentrate on the law rather than the individual by promoting uniformity and concealing status.
Not all judges, however, concur.
Instead of depersonalizing the courtroom, some have started to argue that the robe can make people feel uncomfortable. Children, immigrants, and trauma survivors in particular—people who may already perceive the legal system as intimidating or remote. In these situations, the robe becomes more of a barrier than a unifier.
I remember seeing an Ohio municipal court judge preside over an eviction case while sporting a hoodie and earbuds during the pandemic, when many hearings were moved to Zoom. His language was thoughtful, his rulings were accurate, and his voice was calm. The authority was still there, but the robe was gone. I couldn’t get that image out of my head.
Judges who abandon the robe do so for a variety of reasons, some philosophical, some pragmatic. The fabric is frequently awkward, hot, and heavy. Its hem trips on stairs, and its sleeves catch on drawers. Judges in tribal courts have adapted to cultural changes, such as ribbon appliqués that represent the sky and earth and convey both role and heritage.
More significantly, some judges are challenging the idea that authority needs to be visually enforced. They contend that behavior, justice, and openness—rather than clothing—are what establish trust. Justice feels less theatrical and more approachable when they dress like the people they serve.
Tradition has its supporters, though.
Although not without nuance, 83% of judges who participated in a National Judicial College survey stated that they preferred wearing robes. For many, it serves as a reminder that their role is to serve the law with humility, both to themselves and to others. According to former military judges, the robe occasionally made authority clear in situations where ranks or uniforms were unclear.
The black robe is “a reminder of the relatively modest station we’re meant to occupy in a democratic society,” according to Justice Neil Gorsuch. Judges avoid making courtrooms about their individual personalities by wearing a uniform. According to this perspective, the robe comes to represent restraint rather than hierarchy.
However, that symbolism can vary depending on the culture. Although recent reforms have relaxed their use in civil proceedings, robes and wigs still command deference in the United Kingdom. Business attire has long been allowed by certain administrative courts in the United States. Robes can symbolize tradition rather than erasure in tribal communities.
A Yale law professor compared the black robe to a wedding ring, saying that its significance lies in the reminder it provides rather than the item itself. A promise. A daily decision to be fair. Others, however, think that a vow ought to be evident in every action rather than just every attire.
The public’s reaction is possibly the most interesting tension. A judge dressed normally makes many courtroom attendees feel more comfortable, but others are less confident. According to one attorney, following a hearing with a jurist who was dressed casually, clients would occasionally ask, “Is that person really a judge?”
Perception is important. For the judiciary, legitimacy is based on trust rather than force. Despite having no armies, judges have enormous power. Ultimately, because they are respected, their choices are honored. Depending on personal preference, changing social norms, and cultural context, a robe may or may not promote that respect.
A few judges divided the opinions. For criminal trials and hearings with sizable crowds, they dress in robes; however, for administrative duties, mediation, or child interviews, they dress more casually. Others add symbolic accessories, an embroidered lining, or a colorful collar to customize their robes.
Deeper issues are raised by the discussion: What constitutes justice? Should it feel familiar or formal? Can authority and authenticity coexist?
There is currently no one solution, only a growing understanding that symbols, like systems, need to be reviewed from time to time. Reevaluated rather than necessarily thrown away.
The robe will not be removed. However, its role is evolving, carefully and subtly, on a case-by-case basis. And even in its most traditional corners, the judiciary shows itself to be remarkably responsive in those changes.
