Every person who walks into a courtroom assumes one basic thing: the judge deciding their case is mentally capable of doing the job.
That assumption is not protected by law in Michigan.
There is no required cognitive screening.
- No periodic medical review.
- No confidential reporting system.
- No early intervention process.
- No protected path for a judge to step aside when health declines.
The Hartig case has now shown what happens when those guardrails do not exist. A judge can remain on the bench for months or years while a neurodegenerative condition unfolds behind closed doors, and no one in the courtroom ever knows.
This is not a failure of one person. It is a blatant and troubling failure of design.
The System Runs on Assumption, Not Verification
Michigan’s judicial system assumes judges are fit because they once appeared that they were. It never once verified that they still are.
Once sworn in, judges are presumed competent unless and until something goes catastrophically wrong. There is no routine testing for memory, executive function, attention, or decision making. There is no age-based screening. There is no medical oversight tied to the reality that the job requires sustained high-level cognitive performance.
That means a judge can develop dementia, traumatic brain injury, stroke-related impairment, medication-induced confusion, or degenerative neurological disease and still be issuing warrants, ruling on evidence, setting bond, deciding custody, and ordering medical treatment with no safeguards in place.
The system only reacts after harm has already occurred, and when it does, so, it usually does it quietly.
Hidden Impairment Is the Most Dangerous Kind
Neurocognitive decline does not always announce itself. In many disorders, the person experiencing it does not realize it is happening. Memory can falter. Judgment can drift. Emotional regulation can weaken. But the individual still feels normal.
That is what makes hidden impairment so dangerous in a judge.
A defendant cannot see it, an attorney may sense something is off but cannot prove it.
Court staff may notice inconsistencies but have no authority to intervene.
And the public is never told.
The result is a system where people’s liberty, family, housing, and medical outcomes can hinge entirely on a brain that is quietly failing.
How Widespread the Risk Really Is
Michigan does not test judges for cognitive or neurological fitness. But medicine already tells us what that means.
Judges are overwhelmingly drawn from the same demographic group most affected by neurological decline: adults over 60 working under high stress in cognitively demanding roles. In the general population of that age group:
- Roughly 10 to 20 percent have mild cognitive impairment
- Around 6 to 10 percent have early dementia or neurodegenerative disease
- About 30 percent have experienced at least one significant head injury or concussion
- Large numbers take medications known to affect memory, attention, and judgment
Judges are not healthier than average. In many ways, they are at higher risk. Long legal careers are associated with chronic stress, sleep disruption, alcohol use, hypertension, and depression, all of which increase neurological vulnerability.
Michigan has roughly 591 sitting judges across its trial and appellate courts. Using conservative population estimates, that means:
- 60 to 120 likely have measurable cognitive impairment
- 30 to nearly 50 are likely in the early stages of a neurodegenerative disease
- 150 to 180 likely have a history of head injury that increases risk of memory, impulse control, or judgment problems
- 250 to 350 are likely taking medications known to affect cognition (Benzodiazepines, Opioids, Sleep medications, Anticholinergics, Mood stabilizers, Parkinson’s medications)
Statistically on the low end, more than half of Michigan’s sitting judges carry at least one neurological or pharmacological risk factor affecting cognitive performance, even before substance use is considered.
Nationally, about 16.6 percent of adults 26 and older had a past year substance use disorder. 16.6 percent of 591 is about 98 judges.
…And the system screens none of them. Literally none of these people should be working without some type of cognitive exam.
Now, that does not mean every impaired judge is dangerous. Many people with mild impairment still function well. But, what it does mean, is that Michigan’s courts are operating entirely on blind luck.
No other safety sensitive profession accepts that risk. But the judiciary does. And it is unacceptable to issue absolutely immunity to the cognitively impaired.
Other Professions Do Not Accept This Risk
In fields where a single person’s judgment can harm lives, cognitive fitness is not optional. It is a baseline requirement.
- Commercial airline pilots undergo regular medical and cognitive screening.
- Air traffic controllers are routinely evaluated for neurological and psychological fitness.
- Surgeons, anesthesiologists, and emergency physicians are subject to medical licensing requirements that include mental and cognitive capacity.
- Police officers, firefighters, and many first responders must pass periodic psychological and fitness-for-duty evaluations.
- Even commercial truck drivers are required to meet neurological and medical standards to remain licensed.
These professions recognize a simple truth: skill and experience do not protect against brain disease.
Judges exercise comparable power. They decide who goes to jail or prison, who loses their children, who receives court-ordered medical treatment, and who walks free. Their decisions directly shape (or potentially destroy) lives just as directly as those made in a cockpit, an operating room, or a control tower.
Yet Michigan requires none of the safeguards those professions consider basic.
That gap is not academic. It is where harm enters the system.
Due Process Depends on a Functioning Mind
Due process is not just about fair rules. It depends on the person applying those rules being cognitively able to do so.
Judges must track complex facts, compare testimony, evaluate credibility, apply evolving legal standards, remember prior rulings, and write coherent orders. If those abilities are compromised, every case becomes unstable.
Not because the judge is malicious necessarily, but because the mind doing the work is no longer fully capable.
That is not justice. That is a risk lottery.
What Real Guardrails Would Look Like
If Michigan cared about public safety and judicial integrity, it would have:
- confidential cognitive screening at regular intervals
- mandatory evaluations after certain ages or medical events
- a protected medical off-ramp for judges to step aside without public humiliation
- a neutral medical review board separate from discipline
- and clear rules that protect defendants when a judge’s capacity is in question
None of that infrastructure exists today.
Why Mental Fitness Cannot Stay Hidden
Guardrails only work if they are transparent.
Even when judges are evaluated, those results are hidden unless a disciplinary case forces them into the open. That leaves the public and the bar blind to serious risk.
Michigan needs a secure, standardized judicial fitness database where cognitive and medical evaluation outcomes are recorded, tracked over time, and reviewed by an independent oversight body.
This would:
- establish the baseline when a judge takes office
- track changes across years
- flag abnormal decline
- trigger confidential review
- and require restrictions or removal when safety thresholds are crossed
Most importantly, it would prevent judges with hidden cognitive impairment (intentional or unintentional) from quietly deciding cases that could potentially destroy people’s lives.
Judicial authority depends on trust. Trust cannot exist in a system built on secrecy.
What Science Shows and What the Law Fails to Do
These changes can directly affect judgment, problem solving, and the ability to apply complex rules consistently over time. Modern neuropsychological testing can reliably detect these changes long before they become obvious in daily behavior.
Despite that, no state and not even the federal judiciary requires routine cognitive or mental-fitness testing for sitting judges. Once a judge takes office, there is no mandated screening for dementia, brain injury, medication-related impairment, or neurodegenerative disease, no matter how old the judge becomes or how long they serve.
There’s also no screening for disorders like sociopathy or psychopathy, but that’s another story for another day.
Some states, including Michigan, have judicial conduct or disciplinary systems that allow a judge to be removed or forced into retirement if they are found mentally or physically unable to perform their duties. But these mechanisms are reactive, not preventive. They only activate after complaints are filed, investigations begin, or public breakdowns occur. They do nothing to detect impairment early or protect defendants while decline is still hidden.
There is also no national or state-level database that tracks judicial evaluations, cognitive decline, or medical fitness over time. That means even when evaluations do occur, they remain siloed, invisible, and disconnected from any system designed to protect the public.
The result is a judiciary that relies on assumption rather than verification, even though the science shows cognitive decline is predictable, measurable, and often invisible to the person experiencing it.
The Hartig Case Is a Warning, Not an Outlier
The Hartig Judicial Tenure case shows how long cognitive decline can go undetected. Two independent medical evaluations documented serious impairment over fifteen months while a judge continued to preside over cases.
Nothing in the system stopped it, flagged it early, or even protected the people appearing before that bench, because she was allowed to practice for years, and is still on the bench today.
The public only learned the truth because a disciplinary proceeding forced it into the open. That is not a safety net. That is a massive legislative failure that impacted the due process rights of thousands of Michigan defendants. This is a sliver; there could be more cognitively impaired judges on the bench, and thousands more defendants who were robbed of due process.
Until Michigan builds real mental-fitness guardrails for judges, no one can truly know whether the person deciding their fate is capable of doing so.
I want to acknowledge the professionalism and courage of JTC Director Lynn Helland and investigator Molly Kettler for their ability to be frank in their documentation of the situation. And for that, I thank them for their candor to the taxpayers. Their honesty can move the needle on meaningful mental health reform and protections in the Michigan court system.
That’s Why I’m Drafting a Michigan Judicial Mental Fitness Bill
Because this issue can no longer be treated as abstract, I am now formally drafting proposed legislation for the Michigan Legislature to create mandatory mental and cognitive fitness standards for judges. Upon completion, I will be forwarding it to Senator Stephanie Chang and the Senate Civil Rights, Judiciary, and Public Safety Committee. You might remember them from HB 4045. I have tremendous respect for their work and believe they would take the bill seriously.
The goal is not punishment. It is protection.
My Proposed Bill
The bill will require baseline and periodic neurocognitive evaluations for judicial officers, establish an independent medical review board, and create a secure public registry that discloses whether a judge is fit to serve, fit with monitoring, or unfit, without exposing private medical records.
This legislation is being written so that it can be introduced directly in the Michigan House or Senate, not as a symbolic resolution, but as a real statutory framework that protects defendants, families, and the integrity of Michigan’s courts.
The Hartig case has made one thing clear. Michigan does not need to wait for the judicial cognitive crisis. The system can be fixed, and Clutch will be pivotal in moving that work forward now.
Courtwatching Checklist: Signs of Possible Cognitive Impairment
So in the meantime, how can you help? Courtwatching to the rescue.
This checklist is designed to identify whether a sitting judge can safely and competently perform the cognitive, legal, and ethical functions of the bench. It does not assess ideology, political views, or the content of rulings. It evaluates capacity, accuracy, and reliability in a safety-sensitive public office.
A judge should be referred for confidential fitness review when multiple indicators appear across categories.
Why Age Has to Be Part of Judicial Fitness
Age does not disqualify someone from serving as a judge.
But biology does not stop at the courthouse door.
Medical science has long established that measurable age-related cognitive decline becomes common in the 50s and early 60s. This does not mean people suddenly become incapable. It means that, across the population, certain functions become more variable. These include:
- Slower information processing
- Greater difficulty juggling multiple rules at once
- Reduced cognitive endurance under stress
Most people compensate. Many continue to perform well. But in complex, high-pressure decision environments, variability itself becomes a safety issue.
Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) most often appears between 55 and 75. MCI is not dementia. People with MCI usually live independently and function socially. But it does involve measurable impairment in memory, attention, or executive function, the very capacities judges rely on to apply precedent, manage courtrooms, and regulate emotion.
Each year, 10 to 15 percent of people with MCI progress to dementia.
Neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s disease and frontotemporal dementia also most commonly begin in the 50s to 70s. In many forms, especially frontotemporal dementia and Pick’s disease, the earliest symptoms are not memory loss. They are personality change, poor judgment, impulsivity, and emotional dysregulation, exactly the behaviors that show up in courtroom breakdowns long before anyone recognizes a medical condition.
That is why every other safety-sensitive profession uses age-linked screening. Not to punish people for getting older, but to detect when natural human changes begin to affect professional capacity.
The checklist that follows is built on that principle. It does not assume decline. It measures performance and risk in a role where unchecked impairment carries irreversible consequences.
1. Cognitive Function and Decision-Making
Flags that suggest impairment in memory, attention, or executive function:
- Difficulty tracking facts across hearings
- Repeated confusion about parties, filings, or procedural posture
- Inconsistent rulings on the same issue without explanation
- Problems following testimony or argument
- Errors in basic sequencing of court processes
2. Legal Competence and Precedent Accuracy
Judicial fitness includes the ability to correctly identify, interpret, and apply controlling law. Repeated or material errors in legal citation and precedent usage are objective indicators of impaired judicial function.
A judge should be flagged for review when they:
- Cite a case that does not apply to the legal question presented
- Cite a case from the wrong jurisdiction as controlling authority
- Attribute a holding to a case that did not make that holding
- Apply a legal standard that belongs to a different line of precedent
- Misstate what a cited case actually says or requires
These are not stylistic or ideological disagreements.
They are failures of legal cognition, attention, and working memory that directly affect due process and appellate stability.
3. Procedural Control and Courtroom Management
Indicators that the judge is losing the ability to regulate proceedings:
- Unexplained hostility, sarcasm, or emotional volatility
- Inability to keep hearings on topic
- Talking over litigants or counsel
- Arbitrary changes in procedure
- Loss of neutral demeanor
4. Judgment and Impulse Regulation
Signs of impaired executive control:
- Disproportionate sanctions or reactions
- Inaccurate calculations
- Personalizing disputes
- Making legally irrelevant comments
- Erratic sentencing or ruling patterns
- Escalating conflict instead of resolving it
5. Neurological and Neurodegenerative Risk Indicators
Judicial fitness reviews should include screening for conditions that materially affect cognition, judgment, impulse control, and emotional regulation.
A judge should be flagged for confidential medical review when one or more of the following are present:
- Documented mild neurocognitive disorder
- Prior finding of unfitness to practice
- Diagnosis or treatment for degenerative neurological disease
- History of traumatic brain injury, stroke, or repeated concussions
- Sudden or progressive personality or behavior changes
- Deterioration in work performance or courtroom conduct
This category exists to protect the public and the judge.
It evaluates capacity, not blame.
6. Medication and Substance Interaction Risk
Indicators that treatment or substance use may be affecting performance:
- Sedation, agitation, or slowed cognition in court
- Erratic attendance or performance
- Documented substance use disorder
- Prescribed medications known to affect cognition or impulse control
7. Accountability and Oversight Resistance
Warning signs that a judge is no longer operating within normal professional self-regulation:
- Refusal to acknowledge factual errors
- Pattern of defensive or retaliatory behavior
- Blocking or evading oversight
- Dismissing all concerns as bias or attack
What This Checklist Is and Is Not
This checklist does not assume illness, misconduct, or bad faith.
It identifies functional risk in a role where impaired performance directly harms people’s liberty, family integrity, and financial security.
No airline would let a pilot fly based on reputation alone.
No hospital lets surgeons operate without fitness checks.
Courts should not be the only safety-sensitive system in America that relies on blind trust instead of verified capacity.
What This Looks Like in Practice
To understand why this checklist matters, it helps to see how it would operate when applied to an actual judicial record.
Case Study: Judge Michael Schipper, Barry County
Public reporting and appellate records in Barry County show a pattern involving Judge Michael Schipper, estimated age 63, that would trigger multiple categories of this framework. This is not about disagreement with individual outcomes. It is about repeatable performance indicators.
Medical science shows that measurable cognitive variability becomes common in the 50s and early 60s, the age range in which many sitting judges, including Judge Schipper, now serve. In that same window, Mild Cognitive Impairment and early-stage neurodegenerative diseases often first appear, frequently presenting as judgment errors, impulsivity, emotional volatility, and difficulty applying complex rules under pressure, rather than obvious memory loss.
That does not mean any individual judge is impaired. It means that when a judge in this age range shows repeated, documented failures in legal accuracy, procedural control, and impulse regulation, the risk profile is materially different than it would be for a younger person or a one-off mistake.
In Judge Schipper’s case, the pattern includes:
- Persistent guideline defiance even after appellate reversal
- On-the-record emotional and political commentary
- Escalation toward counsel and defendants
- Misapplication of precedent
- Procedural irregularities affecting transparency
In any other safety-sensitive profession, that combination of age-linked medical risk and performance breakdowns would automatically trigger confidential evaluation. Courts are the only place where it is still treated as taboo to even ask.
That is precisely the gap this legislation is designed to close.
Across multiple cases, Judge Schipper has imposed sentences far outside Michigan’s sentencing guidelines even after the Court of Appeals vacated prior sentences and instructed that resentencing occur within the guideline framework. That pattern is documented in repeated appellate proceedings and detailed in Clutch Justice reporting. It reflects a Category 2 failure, repeated misapplication of controlling law, and a Category 7 failure, resistance to appellate correction.
Courtroom behavior reported in public records and observed by litigants and counsel also implicates Category 3 and Category 4. These include inappropriate, on-the-record expressions of frustration with the Legislature, verbal escalation toward attorneys and defendants, statements that personalize rather than neutralize courtroom conflict, making illogical sentences (claiming prison doesn’t work but then sending someone to prison), and failures to consistently enforce procedural rules governing notice and media access, leaving families and participants unaware of who is present in their hearings. Combined with documented guideline departures driven by dissatisfaction rather than statutory standards, these are textbook indicators of impaired judgment, procedural control, and impulse regulation under the checklist.
Individually, any one of these issues could be written off as temperament or disagreement. Together, across time and cases, they form a performance profile for Judge Michael Schipper that would trigger confidential fitness review in any other safety-sensitive profession.
And that is the exact point of this framework. It does not accuse. It measures. It creates a lawful way to stop guessing and start verifying whether the person exercising enormous power over other people’s lives still has the capacity, control, and legal reliability the job requires.
What Hartig Shows About What Happens When the System Waits
The state does not have to imagine what happens when these warning signs are ignored. Michigan already lived through it.
In the case of Judge Kirsten Nielsen Hartig, the Judicial Tenure Commission ultimately found that she was not fit to practice because of a mild neurocognitive disorder and dementia. By the time that finding became public, the breakdown was obvious. But the deterioration had been happening for years in the courtroom before anyone had a lawful way to intervene.
That is the difference my proposed framework is meant to capture.
Hartig represents what a post-failure case looks like, when impairment has become undeniable and damage has already been done. The checklist and review pathway described here are designed to identify pre-failure cases, when performance, judgment, and legal reliability are already slipping but before a judge has to be publicly removed or litigants are irreparably harmed.
That is not about casting blame. It is about creating a humane, lawful way to respond earlier.
Michigan should not have to wait for another Hartig before it acts.
Pulling it All Together
Michigan does not have a judicial crisis because some judges age, get sick, or take medication. It has a crisis because the court system has no lawful way to tell the difference between a judge who is still fit to wield power and one who is not.
Right now, the state relies on blind trust. There is no routine cognitive screening. No performance based trigger. No medical pathway. A judge can quietly lose the ability to track precedent, regulate impulse, or follow the law and the only time the system reacts is after damage has already been done.
That is what this bill is meant to fix.
The checklist and framework laid out here are not about punishment. They are about measurement. They create a clear, neutral, and legally defensible way to identify when a judge’s capacity has changed and to route that judge into confidential evaluation before people’s rights are harmed.
Judicial independence does not mean immunity from reality. It means freedom from politics, not freedom from physics, medicine, or cognitive decline.
Michigan already regulates every other safety-sensitive profession this way. The bench should not be the only place where no one is ever required to prove they are still able to do the job.
This legislation gives the state a way to protect litigants, court staff, and judges themselves while preserving dignity, privacy, and due process. It replaces guessing with standards and silence with accountability.
That is what a functional court system looks like.
