On Friday, April 3, 2026, the Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission issued a scheduling order regarding the amended complaint filed against Judge Kenneth J. King of the 36th District Court in Detroit. The complaint, initially filed on Monday, March 23, 2026, alleges multiple instances in which Judge King exceeded his contempt powers and violated judicial conduct rules.
The scheduling order follows a pretrial conference held via Zoom on March 11, 2026. Key dates outlined in the order include:
- Discovery and Witness Lists: The Disciplinary Counsel is required to provide discovery and file a witness list by March 31, 2026. Judge King, as the respondent, must provide discovery and file his witness list by April 30, 2026.
- Motion Cut Off: All motions related to the case must be filed by July 15, 2026. A hearing date for these motions will be set if necessary.
- Hearing Date: The public hearing for the case is scheduled to commence on September 14, 2026, with the specific location yet to be determined.
The amended complaint details several incidents that led to the filing. One incident occurred on August 13, 2024, when a group of high school students visited Judge King’s courtroom as part of a field trip. According to the commission’s filing, Judge King left the bench, removed his robe, and addressed the students for approximately 45 minutes. When a teenage visitor fell asleep, Judge King twice directed court security to escort her from the courtroom. After resuming the bench, he ordered that she be taken into custody, dressed in a jail uniform, handcuffed, and detained in a holding area for nearly two hours.
The commission alleges that Judge King imposed these measures without prior notice that sleeping could constitute contempt, without factual findings or legal citation supporting a contempt determination, and at times when the court was not in session. The complaint states the teenager’s sleeping occurred while King was off the bench and did not disrupt court proceedings. It further states that King returned the teenager to the courtroom, publicly questioned her age and demeanor, referenced juvenile detention and the conditions of such facilities, and staged a “mock hearing” in which other students were asked to vote on whether she should be jailed. The commission alleges King did not permit evidence, provide notice of the hearing, or allow the teenager and her attorney time to prepare.
Another incident recounted in the amended complaint involves attorney Tyrone S. Bickerdt on February 9, 2022, during a preliminary examination. The filing states that the prosecutor requested an adjournment because discovery was incomplete. The complaint alleges Judge King questioned whether the defense had received discovery, challenged the attorney’s representations, and ultimately ordered Bickerdt detained in a holding cell for several hours without declaring contempt or making requisite on-the-record findings. Bickerdt was later returned to the courtroom in handcuffs and discharged without a finding of contempt.
The commission asserts that Judge King’s actions in both incidents violated multiple ethical canons, including obligations to be faithful to the law governing contempt, to treat courtroom participants with patience, dignity, and courtesy, and to avoid conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. The commission cites Canon 3(A)(1), 3(A)(3), 3(A)(15), Canon 3(C), and Michigan Court Rules 9.104(1) and 9.104(2).
The amended complaint also notes that King’s conduct in the field-trip incident drew critical coverage from local, national, and international media and prompted public statements from court leadership and advocacy groups.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
