Summary
The Michigan Supreme Court justices deny Judge Sylvia A. James’s motions to disqualify them from a Judicial Tenure Commission proceeding. The statements address the Court’s constitutional superintending-control authority to place Judge James on paid administrative leave and conclude that the justices’ participation does not establish personal bias or another basis for disqualification.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Michigan Supreme Court justices were disqualified from participating in the Judicial Tenure Commission proceeding because the Court had previously placed Judge James on paid administrative leave.
- Whether the justices' prior participation in the administrative-leave order created actual bias, an appearance of impropriety, or another basis for disqualification under MCR 2.003(C)(1)(a)-(c).
- Whether placing Judge James on paid administrative leave was a disciplinary action under Const 1963, art 6, § 30 or instead an exercise of the Supreme Court's superintending-control authority under Const 1963, art 6, § 4.
Holdings
- The justices were not disqualified because Judge James failed to establish personal bias, an appearance of impropriety, or another legitimate ground for recusal; each justice therefore denied the motion for disqualification.
- Placing Judge James on paid administrative leave was not a disciplinary action under Const 1963, art 6, § 30.
- The Supreme Court may exercise its constitutional superintending-control authority under Const 1963, art 6, § 4 to take necessary action short of outright removal of a judge, including placing a judge on paid administrative leave to protect the public and the integrity of a court.
Key quotations
“Administrative leave is not a disciplinary action, nor is the Court’s power to require a judge to take an administrative leave grounded in Const 1963, art 6, § 30.” (1)
“This provision is a broad grant of constitutional authority to take necessary action, short of the outright removal of a judge.” (2)
“in the exercise of its powers of ‘general superintending control over all inferior courts,’ conferred by Michigan Constitution of 1908, art 7, § 4 [now Const 1963, art 6, § 4], for the purpose of protecting the purity of judicial processes and maintaining public confidence in the administration of justice.” (2)
Factual background
Judge Sylvia A. James was the chief and only judge of the 22nd District Court. Following an audit that revealed irregularities in the court's financial records and practices, the Michigan Supreme Court assumed administrative control of the court and placed James on paid administrative leave. After the Judicial Tenure Commission filed a complaint against her, James moved to disqualify all seven Supreme Court justices, alleging bias and other grounds under MCR 2.003.
Procedural history
The Supreme Court had previously exercised superintending control over the 22nd District Court and placed Judge James, its chief and only judge, on paid administrative leave after a Supreme Court Administrative Office audit disclosed irregularities in the court's financial records and practices. The Judicial Tenure Commission then filed a complaint against Judge James, and she sought disqualification of the participating justices under MCR 2.003(C)(1)(a)-(c). Each justice denied the motion.