In an order filed Friday, the commission ruled that Stolz was wrong when she told the man to take off his kufi on July 25, 2007, even though he told her he wore the covering for religious reasons.

The judge’s actions violated judicial canons that require members of the bench to “avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety” and to “be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence in it.”

“Respondent’s actions resulted in denying a criminal defendant his right to free exercise of religion in her courtroom,” the ruling stated.

An admonishment is the least severe penalty the commission can mete out.

Stolz, who cooperated with the commission’s inquiry, voluntarily accepted the punishment.

Contacted Friday by The News Tribune, Stolz, who is running unopposed for another four years on the bench, declined to comment on the commission’s ruling, saying it speaks for itself.

She told commission investigators she asked the man to remove the head covering on a day she was presiding over an extremely heavy criminal calendar.

The judge said she believed the kufi resembled a so-called “do-rag,” and that she thought it was a casual garment, not something “religious in nature,” the commission reported.

Stolz told the commission she meant to follow up later to try to determine whether the head covering indeed was required by Islam but never did.

Judges have authority to set rules for decorum and attire in their courtrooms, and many restrict people from wearing hats, a regulation that springs from a traditional show of respect for the authority of the court.

In its ruling, the commission said that whether wearing a kufi is required by Islam is not the issue.

“The only issue is whether the adherent believes that a given practice is part of their sincere faith,” the ruling states.

What’s more, Stolz should have known that, the commission said. Religious freedoms trump judges’ authority to set court- room rules regarding attire, it said.

“A judge’s honest but mistaken application of the law does not usually result in judicial discipline,” the commission ruled. “In this instance, however, respondent failed to consider settled law as well as a recent public commission disciplinary order, In re Ladenburg, on this very issue.”

In 2006, the commission admonished Tacoma Municipal Court Judge David Ladenburg after he ordered a woman out of his courtroom when she refused to remove her Muslim head scarf.

Ladenburg later apologized, and the Municipal Court clarified its rules on proper courtroom attire to ensure that religious head coverings are OK to wear.

Adam Lynn: 253-597-8644

blogs.thenewstribune.com/crime