On Wednesday, November 5, 2025, the Michigan Supreme Court issued an order regarding the complaint filed by the Judicial Tenure Commission (JTC) against Judge Kirsten Nielsen Hartig of the 52-4 District Court.
The case is entitled “In the Matter of Judge Kirsten Nielsen Hartig,” with case number FC 109.
The Supreme Court’s order grants several motions related to the ongoing proceedings. Specifically, the court granted motions to file both a reply and a surreply in the case. This suggests that there have been multiple rounds of legal arguments presented by the parties involved.
Furthermore, the court granted a motion for superintending control, which sought to extend the date for the completion of the hearing and requested other forms of relief. As a result of this decision, the Michigan Supreme Court has directed the Master overseeing the case to promptly schedule a new date for the public hearing. The order specifies that the hearing procedure must be completed by March 12, 2026. This extension indicates that the initial timeline for the hearing has been adjusted to allow for further proceedings.
This order follows Judge Hartig’s filing of a reply brief on Friday, October 3, 2025, in support of her motion for summary disposition regarding bifurcation in the case before the Judicial Tenure Commission. In that filing, Judge Hartig challenged the constitutionality of the Michigan judicial discipline system, arguing that the structure of the JTC violates due process principles. She sought the dismissal of the counts against her.
Judge Hartig’s central argument is that the JTC’s dual role as both prosecutor and adjudicator creates an “impermissible risk of actual bias,” citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Williams v. Pennsylvania. Her brief emphasizes that the JTC’s function extends beyond mere recommendations, as it is required to make “written findings of fact and conclusions of law,” culminating in a “Decision and Recommendation for Discipline,” which she argues constitutes an adjudicative role.
The brief directly challenges a previous Michigan Supreme Court case, In re Morrow, arguing that the court should have considered Williams v. Pennsylvania instead of Withrow v. Larkin. Judge Hartig contends that Morrow was wrongly decided and that the JTC’s current structure is inherently unconstitutional.
Judge Hartig’s filing also addresses the argument that she has not provided sufficient evidence of actual bias on the part of the Commissioners, asserting that Williams does not require proof of actual bias but focuses on the “risk of bias.” She argues that the very nature of the JTC, acting as both accuser and adjudicator, creates an unacceptable risk.
The brief cites In re Chrzanowski and Friedman v. Rogers to support the principle that a respondent in a judicial discipline proceeding is entitled to an unbiased decision-maker. She also argues against the “presumption of honesty and integrity” afforded to Commission members in Morrow, asserting that the objective standard, focusing on the risk of bias, should supersede the need to ascertain actual bias.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
