On Tuesday, May 20, 2025, the Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission released its 2024 Annual Report, detailing its activities in overseeing judicial conduct across the state. The report provides a comprehensive overview of complaints received, investigations conducted, and disciplinary actions taken against judges, alongside an analysis of racial equity and summaries of specific cases.
In 2024, the Commission received 530 requests for investigation involving 331 judges. This marked a return to pre-pandemic levels of grievances, following lower numbers in 2020 and 2021, possibly due to reduced court activity during the COVID-19 period. The report notes that while the total number of grievances stabilized, the number of cases warranting full investigations has remained higher since 2017. Of the 622 grievances resolved in 2024, concerning 373 judges, 586 were closed without action after review showed no evidence of misconduct, the allegations were unfounded, or the judge provided an adequate explanation.
The Commission issued nine admonitions, twelve cautions, and four explanatory letters to address 30 grievances involving minor or less severe misconduct. No new public complaints were filed in 2024, but three public complaints from prior years remained pending by year-end.
The grievances originated primarily from litigants, their acquaintances, and prisoners, who accounted for 91% of complaints. About two-thirds of the requests sought review of a judge’s legal rulings, which falls outside the Commission’s authority as it is not an appellate court. Another 38% alleged judicial bias, often based solely on disagreement with a judge’s decision. The grievances targeted various judicial positions, with circuit court judges facing the most complaints, followed by district and probate court judges. The underlying litigation types included criminal, civil, domestic relations, and probate cases, with criminal matters being the most common.
The report includes a section on racial equity analysis, examining whether the Commission’s processes disproportionately affect certain demographic groups. While specific findings are not detailed in the summary, the analysis reflects the Commission’s commitment to ensuring fairness in its investigations and disciplinary actions, aligning with its broader mission to maintain public trust in the judiciary.
Case summaries highlight both public and non-public proceedings. Among the public cases, three pending matters involved judges from the 3rd Circuit Court in Wayne County, the 36th District Court in Detroit, and the 46th District Court in Southfield. Details of these cases were not fully disclosed in the report due to their ongoing status.
In non-public proceedings, the Commission addressed various forms of judicial misconduct. One judge was cautioned for improperly holding a litigant in contempt during a Zoom hearing, with the Commission noting the judge’s lack of familiarity with contempt law and the complexities of virtual proceedings. Another judge received a caution for calling a defendant a “clown” during a Zoom arraignment, violating canons requiring courtesy and dignity.
Multiple cases involved ex parte communications, such as a judge emailing a prosecutor without including defense counsel, creating an appearance of partiality. Delays in case rulings also prompted cautions, including a guardianship case delayed nearly four years and a habeas corpus motion unresolved for over nine months. Other issues included judges making discourteous remarks, such as disparaging litigants or accusing them without evidence, and exceeding authority, like ordering a non-party to prove they had a driver’s license. Off-the-bench misconduct included a judge’s misdemeanor plea for carrying an unregistered handgun at an airport and another judge’s false statement during a campaign about never being overturned on appeal.
The Commission’s work in 2024 was supported by a budget of $2,860,338, with actual expenditures of $2,711,799. Additional funding from the Michigan legislature allowed the hiring of contract attorneys to address a backlog of cases, improving the timeliness of resolutions.
The report underscores the Commission’s ongoing efforts to uphold judicial integrity and public confidence in Michigan’s judiciary.
A copy of the report can be found here.
