On Thursday, February 27, 2025, Judge Demetria Brue filed a motion in the Michigan Supreme Court requesting a specific deadline for her responses to motions submitted by the disciplinary counsel. This filing comes in light of two motions filed by the disciplinary counsel on February 21, 2025, concerning the ongoing disciplinary proceedings against Brue, who serves on the Thirty-Sixth District Court in Detroit.
The motions from the disciplinary counsel seek expedited consideration regarding the scheduling of a hearing related to allegations of misconduct against Judge Brue. The first motion calls for the Supreme Court to set a date for the completion of the hearing procedure under Michigan Court Rule (MCR) 9.231(A). The second motion similarly requests the court to enforce an existing order from the Judicial Tenure Commission that establishes a hearing date.
In her motion, Judge Brue’s legal team emphasizes the need for additional time to prepare comprehensive responses to the disciplinary counsel’s motions. They requested that the court allow her until March 7, 2025, to file her answers. The counsel highlighted that the motions filed by the disciplinary counsel necessitate substantial preparation time due to their complexity.
Brue’s attorneys noted that the disciplinary counsel is seeking a decision from the Supreme Court by March 17, 2025, on the matters raised in their motions. By granting Brue’s request, the court would still have ten additional days to consider the disciplinary counsel’s requests.
The motion submitted by Judge Brue was accompanied by a proof of service, indicating that the filing had been served via email to Special Master Judge Alexander Lipsey and the disciplinary counsel. The proof of service was dated the same day, February 27, 2025.
Judge Brue’s ongoing disciplinary proceedings stem from allegations of misconduct related to an incident that occurred on August 20, 2019, at the Mackinac Island Bike Shop during a judicial conference. The case has been designated as FC 105. The allegations include claims that Judge Brue, accompanied by Judge Debra Nance, attempted to seize a receipt from the shop owner after expressing dissatisfaction with a rental bicycle. Reports indicate that Brue accused the owner of assault and racism, citing her position as an elected official and a judge while claiming she feared for her safety.
The disciplinary counsel has filed a motion to coordinate the hearings for both Judges Brue and Nance, arguing that similarities in the cases warrant concurrent public hearings to minimize the burden on witnesses. This motion asserts that many witnesses may be required to testify in both hearings, and scheduling them consecutively would be more efficient. The disciplinary counsel anticipates calling between 10 to 12 witnesses from various locations across Michigan and beyond.
In a status conference held on September 30, 2024, discrepancies in testimony regarding the allegations were highlighted, with the presiding Master questioning the reliability of statements made months after the incident. The disciplinary counsel maintained that fundamental disagreements exist between Judge Nance and the counsel concerning the events of August 20, particularly regarding video evidence and witness accounts.
The disciplinary proceedings have faced delays due to an ongoing audit of the Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission, but counsel for the judges have argued that such delays should not impede the disciplinary process. They emphasize the importance of resolving these matters promptly to maintain the integrity of the judicial system.
In her motion, Judge Brue also addressed previous claims made regarding her opportunities to resolve the allegations outside of a public hearing. The disciplinary counsel asserted that all judges facing similar charges are presented with options to avoid public proceedings, including the possibility of resignation.
As the case moves forward, Judge Brue’s motion for a specific response date is set against the backdrop of a broader discussion about judicial accountability and the processes governing misconduct allegations.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
