Courtroom Dress Codes in 2026: Yes, Someone Wore Crocs to Federal Court
When federal judges start specifying footwear in their standing orders, you know somebody pushed the envelope too far.
Federal courtrooms are formal places. Everyone knows this. But "formal" means different things to different judges, and a surprisingly large number of them have decided to spell it out in writing. When we crawled standing orders across 20 districts, we found dress code provisions ranging from the vaguely aspirational ("appropriate attire is expected") to the surgically specific ("no denim of any color, including black").
Every one of these rules exists because somebody showed up wearing the thing the rule now bans. That's how standing orders work: each weird provision is a scar from a past incident.
The Explicit Bans
Multiple courthouses post dress code requirements at the entrance. But individual judges sometimes add their own provisions on top of the building-wide rules. Here's a composite list of items we found explicitly prohibited in standing orders and courtroom postings across our dataset:
- Flip-flops and sandals (multiple districts)
- Shorts of any length
- Tank tops, halter tops, and "shirts that expose the midriff"
- Hats (with religious/medical exemptions noted)
- Clothing with "offensive language or imagery"
- Sunglasses worn indoors
- "Athletic wear, including yoga pants and track suits"
- Visible undergarments
The yoga pants ban is interesting because it suggests enough people wore them to court that a judge felt compelled to address it in a formal document filed with the clerk's office. This is a federal judge who sat down, opened a Word document, and typed the words "yoga pants."
The Attorney Standard
Attorneys face a higher bar than the public. Most dress code provisions distinguish between spectators and officers of the court. For lawyers, the baseline expectation is professional business attire. But what counts as "professional" has shifted, and standing orders reflect the tension.
One judge in the Northern District of Illinois puts it plainly:
"Male attorneys shall wear a suit and tie. Female attorneys shall wear a suit, professional dress, or equivalent business attire. Business casual is not acceptable."
Other judges have moved toward gender-neutral language: "professional attire appropriate for a formal courtroom proceeding." The shift is gradual. In our dataset, about 60% of dress code provisions that mention specific garments still use gendered categories.
The Crocs Incident
Court staff across multiple districts confirmed, off the record, that attorneys have appeared in Crocs. Not as a statement. Not ironically. Just as shoes they apparently wear every day and didn't think twice about. The response varies: some judges say nothing, others address it privately, and at least one issued a reminder to the local bar about "appropriate footwear."
To be fair, some of these situations involved attorneys who were called to court unexpectedly, arriving straight from wherever they were when the phone rang. But the rules don't include a "caught off guard" exception.
Juror Dress Codes
Jurors occupy an interesting middle ground. They're not lawyers, but they're not spectators either. Several courts include juror-specific dress guidance in their jury instructions or summons materials. The tone is gentler: "We ask that you dress in a manner that reflects the seriousness of the proceeding" rather than "no yoga pants."
But at least one district goes further: jurors in the District of Hawaii receive a dress code sheet with their summons that includes the line "aloha attire is acceptable." This is, as far as we can tell, the only federal court dress code that explicitly permits Hawaiian shirts.
The Cultural Shift
Post-2020, courtroom dress norms are visibly loosening. Zoom hearings during the pandemic created a new baseline for formality, and not all of it snapped back when in-person proceedings resumed. Several judges we track have relaxed their dress code language in recent standing order updates, removing specific garment bans and replacing them with general "professional attire" requirements.
Others have gone the other direction, adding provisions specifically because pandemic-era habits persisted. One standing order updated in 2024 added: "Counsel shall not appear from a vehicle, restaurant, or other informal setting during telephonic or video proceedings." Someone called in from a Chipotle.
Dress codes are the most human corner of court rules. Every prohibition tells a story. Every update is a reaction. If you want to see how courtroom culture is actually changing, don't read the opinions. Read the standing orders.