On Friday, August 8, 2025, Michigan Advance reported that a recent investigation has revealed ongoing racial disparities in the complaint process of Michigan’s judicial oversight board. The findings were published in a report released on August 1, which examined the racial composition of judges receiving complaints and highlighted significant issues within the Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission.
The Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission, a nine-member body, is responsible for investigating complaints and potential misconduct involving judges. While the commission lacks the authority to impose sanctions directly, it can take confidential actions such as issuing letters of explanation, admonition, or caution. It can also recommend public complaints that may lead to sanctions like suspension or dismissal.
Between 2008 and 2022, the Association of Black Judges of Michigan noted that 52% of judges charged by the commission were Black, compared to 48% who were white. In response to these alarming statistics, the association sought an independent audit of the commission, a request that received backing from the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan. The ACLU expressed concerns about the commission’s confidentiality and the general inaccessibility of its proceedings, making it difficult for organizations to verify or investigate complaints.
In 2024, the State Court Administrative Office, in collaboration with the commission, engaged the National Center for State Courts to conduct a racial equity analysis of the commission’s grievance review process. The first phase of this analysis was completed in 2024 and revealed several disparities. Specifically, Black judicial officers faced a higher average number of grievances than their white counterparts. Furthermore, grievances against Black officers were more likely to proceed to a full investigation, and these officers were also more likely to receive public censure as a resolution.
The second phase of the analysis aimed to identify factors contributing to these disparities. Although commission members believed their process was fair and unbiased, judges and their attorneys involved in the complaints expressed a different perspective. Interviews indicated that many felt the complaint process was poorly communicated and that options for negotiated resolutions were not equally available.
The analysis revealed that Black judges were the most likely to perceive the complaint process as racially biased. Additionally, Black respondents were 57% more likely to see their grievances escalate into full investigations when requests for additional evidence, such as court transcripts, were approved. Conversely, when transcript requests were not included, race did not significantly influence whether a grievance would escalate.
Regarding the severity of grievance outcomes, Black respondents were more likely to receive public sanctions rather than have grievances dismissed or settled confidentially. Men were also found to face more severe sanctions overall. However, the analysis indicated no statistically significant relationship between race and severity in cases where individuals likely to face public sanctions left their positions before a final outcome was reached.
The National Center for State Courts concluded that the inclusion of transcripts in initial investigation requests may play a role in the relationship between race and grievance proceedings. The report suggested that grievants might be less likely to include transcripts when filing against Black respondents, or that the commission might more frequently request such transcripts for Black judges. It recommended further data collection and analysis to identify the contributing factors to these disparities.
The report emphasized that while there was no evidence of explicit discriminatory practices by the Judicial Tenure Commission, the absence of standardized definitions and processes could lead to perceived or real unfair treatment based on race.
Source: Michigan Advance
