Key Takeaways
- Filing a complaint with the State Court Administrative Office (SCAO) is protected activity against unlawful retaliation by court staff.
- Court staff, including probation officers and clerks, must not retaliate following an SCAO complaint as they are considered state actors.
- Retaliation can include threats, escalated supervision, and differential treatment, especially when actions closely follow a complaint.
- SCAO complaints are external oversight tools, and retaliation undermines the integrity of the judicial system.
- Maintaining public trust is crucial; courts must rule out the punishment of individuals reporting misconduct.
QuickFAQs
No. Retaliation for filing an SCAO complaint is unlawful. It can violate constitutional protections, Michigan court rules, and established public-policy doctrine protecting whistleblowers and petitioners.
Yes. Court staff are state actors. Retaliation by them triggers constitutional scrutiny and exposes the court and county to liability.
Escalated supervision, selective enforcement, threats, adverse administrative actions, or differential treatment following protected activity.
The Law Is Clear, Even If the Behavior Isn’t
Filing a complaint with the State Court Administrative Office (SCAO) is protected activity. It is an exercise of the right to petition the government for redress of grievances under the First Amendment. Courts do not get a special exemption from constitutional law simply because they wear robes or carry clipboards.
Once an individual files an SCAO complaint, court staff are legally and ethically prohibited from retaliating in response. That prohibition applies regardless of whether the staff member believes the complaint is “annoying,” “unfair,” or “disruptive.” Personal offense is not a lawful basis for state action.
Last Sunday, I just so happened to have submitted two factually complete, well-documented SCAO complaints; I still faced blowback.
Retaliation is not only unethical. It is actionable.
Why Court Staff Are Not Immune
Court employees are state actors. That includes:
- Probation officers
- Court clerks
- Administrators
- Any employee exercising authority under color of state law
When court staff take adverse action in response to protected activity, they expose themselves and their employing county to claims under:
- 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights violations)
- First Amendment retaliation doctrine
- Fourteenth Amendment due process protections
Courts oversee justice. They do not get to punish people for asking whether justice is being done.
What Retaliation Looks Like in Practice
Retaliation is rarely announced. It is implied, procedural, and plausibly deniable. Common examples include:
- Sudden escalation of supervision conditions
- Threats of violation without new misconduct
- Selective enforcement of technical rules
- Withholding resources or information
- Differential treatment compared to similarly situated individuals
Timing matters. When adverse actions follow closely after an SCAO complaint, the inference is not subtle. Courts know this. Insurance carriers definitely know this.
“Internal Discipline” Is Not a Defense
A frequent misconception inside court systems is that SCAO complaints are “internal” and therefore not protected. That is wrong.
SCAO is a supervisory arm of the Michigan Supreme Court. Complaints submitted to it are external oversight mechanisms, not workplace gossip. Retaliation for engaging with oversight bodies is treated severely because it undermines the integrity of the judicial system itself.
Courts are not allowed to police criticism by punishing critics.
The Institutional Risk Courts Ignore at Their Peril
When retaliation occurs after an SCAO complaint, it does more than create individual exposure. It creates:
- Evidence of deliberate indifference
- Proof of retaliatory motive
- A record tying adverse actions to protected conduct
- Heightened insurance and indemnification risk
At that point, the problem is no longer the complaint. The problem is the response.
If you find this happening to you, write a supplement to your SCAO Region Administrator with screenshots.
Why This Matters
Courts rely on public trust. Retaliation against complainants corrodes that trust and signals institutional fragility, not authority.
If courts want to maintain legitimacy, the rule is simple:
You DO NOT punish people for reporting you.
The law already decided this. Repeatedly. Loudly. And with case law.
Sources and Legal Framework
- U.S. Const. amend. I (right to petition)
- 42 U.S.C. § 1983
- State Court Administrative Office Complaints
- Michigan Court Rules, Chapter 9
- Model Code of Conduct for Michigan Trial Court Employees
- Federal First Amendment retaliation jurisprudence
