Key Takeaways
- The Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission seeks to block a former judge from returning due to misconduct allegations.
- Under Michigan law, ‘unfit’ encompasses both cognitive incapacity and behavioral misconduct.
- Behavioral misconduct often leads to urgent actions, while cognitive decline frequently results in quiet retirements without public scrutiny.
- The Commission must apply the same standards for discipline consistently, regardless of whether the issue is misconduct or incapacity.
- Judicial fitness should rely on competence, not perceptions; transparency is essential for public trust.
QuickFAQs
The Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission investigates allegations of judicial misconduct and can recommend discipline to the Michigan Supreme Court.
Yes. The JTC may petition the Michigan Supreme Court to impose discipline that would prevent a judge from serving again.
That depends. Michigan law allows discipline for both incapacity and misconduct, but historically, the threshold and enforcement patterns appear inconsistent.
The Michigan Supreme Court determines final discipline.
The Current Case
According to reporting by the Detroit Free Press, the Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission has asked the Michigan Supreme Court to block a former Taylor judge, Joseph Slaven, from returning to the bench following his resignation amid a misconduct investigation.
The Commission reportedly argues he is “unfit.”
I personally believe that word matters, especially because “unfit” is doing a lot of work here.
What Does “Unfit” Actually Mean?
Under Michigan Court Rule 9.2021, discipline may be imposed for:
- Misconduct in office
- Persistent failure to perform duties
- Conduct clearly prejudicial to the administration of justice
- Physical or mental incapacity
Read that again. Physical or mental incapacity.
Not just misconduct, not just temperament, not just “personality issues.”
So here’s the uncomfortable policy question:
Why is the Commission drawing a bright line around personality-driven misconduct while documented cognitive decline cases, as we are seeing with Judge Hartig, often result in quiet retirements, soft landings, or negotiated exits without permanent disqualification?
The Double Standard Nobody Wants to Say Out Loud
Michigan has seen judges remain on the bench amid public concerns about:
- Memory lapses
- Repeated confusion in proceedings
- Diminished courtroom management capacity
- Age-related decline
In many of those instances, the resolution is “encouraged retirement.”
Sometimes a resignation, rarely a permanent bar from service. But when the issue becomes behavioral, temperamental, or credibility-based? Suddenly the Commission finds urgency.
Suddenly “unfit” becomes existential.
Cognitive Decline vs. Personality Conflict
Early onset dementia, cognitive impairment, or neurological decline directly affect:
- Due process
- Accurate rulings
- Evidentiary analysis
- Sentencing decisions
- Public safety
That is not theoretical harm; it is structural harm.
Yet historically, incapacity cases are handled with more deference and privacy, often framed as compassionate exits rather than public fitness determinations.
Meanwhile, misconduct cases rooted in temperament, ethical violations, or personal conduct are more likely to result in public declarations of unfitness.
Why? Because one is uncomfortable, and the other is embarrassing. Institutions tolerate fragility longer than they tolerate disruption.
The Real Policy Question
If the Judicial Tenure Commission is prepared to tell the Michigan Supreme Court that a former judge must never return to the bench due to misconduct, then it must be equally transparent and consistent in how it handles:
- Verified cognitive impairment
- Age-related incapacity
- Repeated courtroom confusion
- Failure to comprehend proceedings
Judicial fitness should not depend on optics; it should depend on function.
Why This Matters
The public deserves:
- Competent judges
- Transparent standards
- Consistent application of discipline
If “unfit” means unfit, then it must apply to both ethical breakdown and cognitive incapacity.
If it does not, then we are not talking about fitness. We are talking about institutional comfort. And institutional comfort is not a constitutional standard.
The Verdict
The Judicial Tenure Commission is correct to act when it believes a judge cannot serve ethically. But Michigan must confront a harder truth: the line between misconduct and incapacity cannot be selectively enforced.
If we are serious about protecting the integrity of the bench, then fitness must be defined by ability to serve competently, not by whether the problem is awkward or disruptive.
The robe is not a sympathy shield, and “unfit” should not be a flexible word.
Sources
- Detroit Free Press, Darcie Moran, Feb. 13, 2026
- Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission Rules and Procedures
