On Friday, September 26, 2025, the Disciplinary Counsel filed a response to Judge Kirsten Nielsen Hartig’s motion for summary judgment. Judge Hartig, of the 52-4 District Court in Troy, Michigan, is facing a complaint filed by the Judicial Tenure Commission on June 4, 2024, which alleges judicial misconduct.
The case is entitled “In the Matter of Judge Kirsten Nielsen Hartig,” with case number FC 109.
The Commission’s complaint accuses Judge Hartig of refusing to provide her Commission-ordered psychological evaluation report, making false statements to the Commission, mistreating court employees, obstructing court administration, and disregarding the law by dismissing criminal cases.
Judge Hartig’s motion for summary disposition argues that Michigan’s judicial discipline system is unconstitutional, a claim the Michigan Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected. The Disciplinary Counsel’s response argues that the Supreme Court has consistently upheld the constitutionality of the procedures used in disciplinary proceedings. They assert that Judge Hartig’s motion should be denied.
The Disciplinary Counsel cites Michigan Court Rule (MCR) 9.231, which stipulates that the Master is to rule on motions regarding the complaint, answer, and hearing. The rule states that recommendations on dispositive motions should only be announced at the hearing’s conclusion, but the Master can refer a recommendation regarding a dispositive motion to the commission on an interlocutory basis.
Judge Hartig’s motion claims the Commission’s structure is unconstitutional, citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Williams v. Pennsylvania. However, the Disciplinary Counsel notes that the Michigan Supreme Court has already rejected this argument in cases like In re Morrow. Judge Hartig is requesting the Master to express the view that the Michigan Supreme Court should declare the Commission’s structure unconstitutional, but the Disciplinary Counsel argues that the Master should decline this request.
The Disciplinary Counsel emphasizes that the Michigan Supreme Court has consistently rejected challenges to the Commission’s structure since its creation in 1969. They argue that bifurcating the Commission’s functions would frustrate the Constitution’s intent for collective input from representatives of the judiciary, bar, and public.
The response further cites In re Mikesell, where Judge Mikesell argued that judicial discipline proceedings are quasi-penal and violate constitutional requirements for separation of powers, a fair hearing, and due process. The Michigan Supreme Court disagreed, stating the proceedings aim to maintain judicial fitness, not punish criminality. The Disciplinary Counsel also cites In re Chrzanowski and Matter of Del Rio, where the Supreme Court affirmed the constitutionality of the Commission’s structure.
The Disciplinary Counsel argues that Judge Hartig’s challenge to the combination of accusatory and adjudicative functions is similar to arguments made in In re Morrow. They maintain that the Commission’s role and procedures remain substantially the same, regardless of the label applied to its duties.
The Disciplinary Counsel distinguishes Williams v. Pennsylvania, noting that the Commission only makes recommendations to the Supreme Court, which then conducts a de novo review before making any disciplinary decisions. They also point out that Commission proceedings are not criminal, so the due process interests in criminal cases do not apply.
The Disciplinary Counsel also argues that the Commission is separate from the prosecution of complaints, with no ex parte communication between staff and the Commission. They also note that the Commission often finds fewer counts of misconduct than originally charged. The Disciplinary Counsel concludes by stating that Judge Hartig’s motion for summary judgment should be denied.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
