Kahlilia Davis wants her old job back on the Detroit bench, even though the Michigan Supreme Court has already sidelined her from judicial service for six years. The suspension followed a state inquiry that found repeated misconduct and came with conditions that could keep her from exercising any judicial power even if voters send her back to the courthouse. Her latest campaign is unfolding in the shadow of a separate court ruling that previously directed election officials to keep her name off the ballot.
As reported by the Detroit Free Press, Davis, first elected to the 36th District Court in 2016, has filed to run again and is actively asking Detroiters for their votes. The Free Press recounts episodes that helped spark scrutiny of her attendance and courtroom behavior, including a reported request to take time off to travel to Germany before she even began hearing cases. The paper frames her latest bid as a direct shot at the disciplinary orders that sidelined her.
In a June 23, 2023 order, the Michigan Supreme Court imposed a six-year conditional suspension without pay and adopted many of the Judicial Tenure Commission’s findings. The court spelled out that if Davis were elected while that suspension was still in effect, she would “be debarred from exercising the power and prerogatives of the office” until at least the end of the suspension period. That order remains the central disciplinary action that defines her status today.
The practical consequences of that suspension were reinforced by a June 3, 2024 decision in the Court of Claims, which concluded that Davis was ineligible to be certified as a candidate for a 2024 judgeship and ordered the Secretary of State not to certify her. As outlined by the Court of Claims, state election officials have a ministerial duty to exclude judicial hopefuls who are legally ineligible to serve. That decision is the legal backbone that election officials have relied on in past efforts to keep Davis off the ballot.
The allegations that produced those rulings are stark. The Judicial Tenure Commission and the Supreme Court cited instances of disabled courtroom video equipment, improper contempt findings, summary dismissals tied to a personal dispute over a process server, and other behavior the commission ultimately described as proof that Davis was “unfit.” As reported by ClickOnDetroit, the commission urged outright removal before the Supreme Court settled on a conditional suspension instead.
Why this matters in Detroit
The 36th District Court is one of the busiest trial courts in the country; the court’s own website notes it handles a heavy daily docket across many divisions. Metro Times reported that other judges and visiting judges have had to cover cases while Davis’s status was in limbo, which puts extra strain on already stretched court resources. That backlog and disruption are among the reasons court officials and watchdogs pressed for disciplinary action in the first place.
Legal hurdles to serving
Even if Davis wins at the ballot box, the Court of Claims has already instructed that election officials have a clear legal duty to bar a candidate whose eligibility has been wiped out by the Supreme Court’s suspension order. Metro Times previously quoted election officials saying “BOE will need to determine if this flier’s judicial suspension legally prevents her from appearing on the ballot,” and that the bureau would consult the Attorney General’s office on the question. Any successful run by Davis would almost certainly trigger immediate administrative review and likely more litigation.
Davis remains free to stump for votes and talk to residents, but the legal record means any victory at the polls would not automatically give her back a gavel. Detroiters weighing candidates for the 36th District Court are not just choosing a name, they are deciding whether to back a contender whose very ability to wield judicial power has been questioned and tightly constrained by the state’s highest court and a follow-up trial-court ruling.
