On Wednesday, December 10, 2025, the Michigan Supreme Court issued an order pertaining to the case involving Judge Kirsten Nielsen Hartig of the 52-4 District Court, who is facing a formal complaint (No. 109) before the Judicial Tenure Commission (JTC). This order addresses several motions and clarifies the scope of authority within the ongoing proceedings.

The Supreme Court granted a motion to accept a reply brief, signaling the continuation of legal arguments and submissions in the case. Simultaneously, the court denied a motion for superintending control. This motion sought to extend the date for the completion of the hearing and requested other forms of relief. However, in a separate order issued on November 5, 2025, the Michigan Supreme Court granted a motion for superintending control, directing the Master overseeing the case to promptly schedule a new date for the public hearing. The order specified that the hearing procedure must be completed by March 12, 2026.

The December 10th order further addresses the role of the Master, appointed by the Court, emphasizing that the Master serves at the Court’s discretion, as outlined in Michigan Court Rules (MCR) 9.231(A) and 9.211(C). The Court explicitly stated that the JTC does not possess review authority over the Master’s decisions in this matter, citing MCR 9.211 and MCR 9.231. Consequently, the Supreme Court determined that the JTC’s order of November 21, 2025, was issued without proper authority, based on the stated grounds.

Despite finding the JTC’s November 21st order to be unauthorized, the Supreme Court acknowledged that the relief sought by the JTC in that order was appropriate. To that end, the Court directed the Master to proceed in a manner consistent with the directives outlined in the JTC’s previous order, referencing MCR 9.211(C). The original stay of proceedings, which had been ordered on November 26, 2025, was dissolved by the Supreme Court’s latest order, allowing the case to move forward.

The backdrop to these orders includes Judge Hartig’s challenge to the constitutionality of the Michigan judicial discipline system. On Friday, October 3, 2025, Judge Hartig filed a reply brief supporting her motion for summary disposition regarding bifurcation in the case before the JTC. In that filing, she argued that the structure of the JTC violates due process principles, seeking 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,” referencing the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Williams v. Pennsylvania. She contends 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.

Judge Hartig’s filing also 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 asserts that Morrow was wrongly decided and that the JTC’s current structure is inherently unconstitutional. She further argues that Williams does not require proof of actual bias but focuses on the “risk of bias,” asserting that the very nature of the JTC, acting as both accuser and adjudicator, creates an unacceptable risk.

A copy of the original filing can be found here.