The JTC Will Livestream Hartig’s Hearing. It Still Won’t Release the Video That Built the Case.

Oral argument in Formal Complaint No. 109 is set for October 5, 2026. The Neutral found two of five counts proved. The courtroom video that helped build that record still isn’t public.

What the Notice of Hearing Actually Says

Judicial Tenure Commission Chairperson Thomas J. Ryan signed a Notice of Hearing in Formal Complaint No. 109 on July 20, 2026. The notice confirms that Neutral Jennifer Mazzuchi filed her report on June 9, 2026, under MCR 9.236, and that both disciplinary counsel, Glenn J. Page, Molly Kettler, and Nichollette Hoard, and Hartig’s attorneys, Donald D. Campbell and Katharine B. Smith, have already filed briefs in support of and objecting to that report. Responses to those briefs were due July 21, 2026.

Pursuant to MCR 9.241, the Judicial Tenure Commission has scheduled the matter for oral argument as follows: Monday, October 5, 2026, at 10:00, Michigan Court of Appeals, Cadillac Place.

The notice also states that the hearing will be livestreamed, with access instructions posted to the Commission’s website before the hearing date, under the FC 109 heading on its pending public complaints page.

Where the Case Stands Heading Into October

Clutch Justice broke down the Neutral’s findings count by count when the report was released in June. The short version: the Commission proved two of the five allegations it brought. Count One, that Hartig withheld an APN psychological evaluation from court leadership for roughly five months, violated MCR 9.220(D) and MCR 9.202(B)(1)(f). Count Three, a fifteen-year pattern of discourteous conduct and administrative overreach toward court staff, tracked closely with the record built in O’Neal v. 52nd District Court, the federal whistleblower case a former court administrator settled in 2023.

The Neutral did not find the Commission proved Count Two, inaccurate statements without demonstrated wrongful intent, Count Four, dismissals with prejudice she found erroneous but not made in bad faith, or Count Five, the allegation that Hartig has a mental disability that prevents her from performing her judicial duties. That last finding matters. It means the record, as the Neutral read it, did not establish the disqualifying cognitive impairment that earlier reporting on Hartig’s diagnosis had raised as a live question.

The Hearing Will Be Public. The Case Against Her Still Isn’t.

Here is the tension worth sitting with heading into October. In March 2026, Chief Judge Travis Reeds testified at Hartig’s misconduct hearing using courtroom video exhibits pulled from her docket, cases identified by number as DC205 through DC223. He told the Commission he chose the clips essentially at random, expecting to find problems on any given day. Those videos became part of the evidentiary record the Commission used to build its case.

Clutch Justice reported in June that those same videos were never made available to Oakland County voters during Hartig’s re-election, the moment when the public most needed to evaluate her conduct on the bench. In a separate federal appeal, Hallman v. Reeds, Reeds argued the public has no First Amendment right to see that footage at all, that transcripts are an adequate substitute. The Neutral’s own June 9 report undercut that substitution argument by mischaracterizing Reeds’ video-based testimony as transcript-based, a factual error that only makes sense if no one checked the underlying video against the written record.

Now, in October, the Commission will livestream its own oral argument over what discipline Hartig should face. The proceeding that decides her professional future gets public access. The proceeding that decided her fitness to keep hearing cases in the first place, the recordings that formed the factual record against her, still does not.

What Oral Argument Actually Means

Oral argument under MCR 9.241 is not a new trial. The Commission does not reweigh witness credibility live. It considers the Neutral’s findings, the parties’ written objections, and argument on those objections, then votes on whether to adopt the findings and what to recommend. Any public discipline, including suspension or removal, must still be filed with and ultimately decided by the Michigan Supreme Court, which reviews the record independently. Clutch Justice flagged that appellate step in June as the corrective mechanism available if the Commission’s ultimate decision undercorrects for what the record actually shows, particularly on a disability finding that a retired judge, not a medical panel, was asked to weigh.

What to Watch For on October 5

Three questions frame the hearing. First, whether the Commission treats the two proved counts, the withheld evaluation and the staff mistreatment pattern, as sufficient on their own for public discipline, or whether it pushes for a more severe recommendation than the Neutral’s findings support. Second, whether the disability question resurfaces in argument even though the Neutral found it not proved, given how central the diagnosis has been to public reporting on this case. Third, whether the livestream functions as promised. A Commission that can commit to public access for its own proceeding in four months has the infrastructure to have made the underlying video record accessible far earlier than this.

Why the Gap Matters

None of this requires the Commission to have gotten the underlying misconduct case wrong. The Neutral proved real violations on a real record. The problem is narrower and, in some ways, more durable: a disciplinary system can function exactly as designed, produce a defensible finding, and still leave voters with less information than the institution disciplining the judge had all along. Livestreaming the October hearing is a genuine step toward transparency. It is also a reminder that transparency, when the Commission chooses to offer it, is a choice, not a default, and the choice so far has landed on the proceeding about Hartig rather than the evidence that put her there.