Judge Travis Reeds, Chief Judge of the 52nd District Court, issued a public statement on June 5, 2025, confirming that he has requested the State of Michigan remove Judge Kirsten Nielsen Hartig from the court’s docket entirely — an action that would go beyond his own prior administrative action of removing her from the most serious cases within his chief judge authority. The statement was obtained by Clutch Justice through a press inquiry to the Oakland County Public Information Officer. Reeds also confirmed that now a formal JTC complaint has been filed, he believes further action is appropriate and that temporary full docket removal would be in the best interest of the court and the communities it serves.
The Statement
In response to a Clutch Justice press inquiry, Oakland County Public Information Officer Bill Mullan provided both Judge Reeds’ statement and confirmation of his request to the State for full docket removal. The statement, dated June 5, 2025, reads in full:
What the Statement Establishes
The statement documents three distinct facts. First, Judge Reeds had already taken administrative action before the statement — removing Hartig from the most serious cases within his chief judge authority. This action predated the statement and was not previously publicly confirmed in this detail. Second, the filing of the formal JTC complaint is, in Reeds’ assessment, a threshold event that makes further action appropriate — the complaint changes what the institutional response should be. Third, Reeds has made a request to the State for full docket removal, an action that exceeds his own administrative authority and represents an escalation to the level of oversight that can authorize that outcome.
The statement’s framing — “within the authority I had as chief judge” — is significant. It documents that Reeds exercised the full extent of the authority available to him at the administrative level, and that he has separately sought to engage the level of authority above his own. This is not a chief judge expressing concern while taking no action. It is a chief judge who has taken the maximum action available to him and is seeking more.
The JTC’s investigation into Judge Hartig spanned approximately five years before the filing of FC No. 109 on June 4, 2025. During that period, she continued to preside over cases. Judge Reeds’ statement notes that he removed her from “the most serious cases” based on “the limited information available” to him at the time — suggesting his administrative action was taken without full knowledge of the evaluation’s conclusions. The filing of the formal complaint appears to have prompted both the public statement and the escalated request to the State. The question of how long a judge about whom a chief judge has concerns should continue on an unrestricted docket before a formal complaint mechanism produces formal action is the question this sequence of events documents in real time.
Sources
Rita Williams, Statement from Judge Travis Reeds, Pending Removal of Judge Kirsten Nielsen Hartig, Clutch Justice (June 6, 2025), https://clutchjustice.com/2025/06/06/statement-from-judge-travis-reeds-potential-removal-of-judge-kirsten-nielsen-hartig/.
Williams, R. (2025, June 6). Statement from Judge Travis Reeds, pending removal of Judge Kirsten Nielsen Hartig. Clutch Justice. https://clutchjustice.com/2025/06/06/statement-from-judge-travis-reeds-potential-removal-of-judge-kirsten-nielsen-hartig/
Williams, Rita. “Statement from Judge Travis Reeds, Pending Removal of Judge Kirsten Nielsen Hartig.” Clutch Justice, 6 June 2025, clutchjustice.com/2025/06/06/statement-from-judge-travis-reeds-potential-removal-of-judge-kirsten-nielsen-hartig/.
Williams, Rita. “Statement from Judge Travis Reeds, Pending Removal of Judge Kirsten Nielsen Hartig.” Clutch Justice, June 6, 2025. https://clutchjustice.com/2025/06/06/statement-from-judge-travis-reeds-potential-removal-of-judge-kirsten-nielsen-hartig/.
