The Arkansas Supreme Court dismissed an extraordinary case on Dec. 11, 2025, in which Chief Justice Karen Baker attempted to judicially appeal harassment findings made against her by the state's Administrative Office of the Courts.
In the case *Karen Baker, Chief Justice of the Arkansas Supreme Court v. Marty Sullivan, Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts*, the court ruled it lacked jurisdiction over what it characterized as an internal administrative matter. The decision marked an unusual situation where the state's highest court was asked to review allegations against its own chief justice.
The controversy stems from incidents that occurred on Dec. 4 and 5, 2024, when Baker, then Chief Justice-elect, walked through several areas within the Administrative Office of the Courts and entered individual offices. According to the court's opinion, some AOC employees did not recognize Baker and became uncomfortable with the questions she asked, her comments, and instructions she gave them to open a locked office.
Following these encounters, several employees filed complaints with the human resources department. The complaints alleged they were targeted and harassed based on gender, race, and how they voted in the recent Arkansas Supreme Court Chief Justice election. One employee also expressed concern about being asked whether they were cooperating with a separate Arkansas Judicial Discipline and Disability Commission investigation.
The AOC human resources department conducted an investigation into these allegations and concluded in a written report that Baker had indeed harassed employees. According to Baker's filing, Director Marty Sullivan sent her the report and indicated he was required to turn it over to another entity, though the court opinion does not specify which organization would receive the report.
Baker responded by filing what she titled a "Notice of Appeal and Motion to Dismiss" with the Arkansas Supreme Court, disputing the harassment findings. The filing created the unusual circumstance of the chief justice attempting to use the judicial system to challenge administrative findings against her own conduct.
In its per curiam opinion, the court characterized Baker's filing as "an attempt to judicially appeal initial findings." However, the justices determined they lacked jurisdiction to hear such an appeal of internal administrative matters.
"We dismiss the action so that it can be handled as an internal administrative matter of the Arkansas Supreme Court," the court wrote in its opinion.
The dismissal means the harassment findings remain in place and will be handled through internal administrative channels rather than through the judicial system. The court's ruling establishes that such employment-related disputes involving court personnel cannot be resolved through judicial appeals to the same court system.
The case highlights the complex intersection of judicial authority and administrative oversight within Arkansas's court system. While chief justices hold significant administrative responsibilities over court operations, they remain subject to human resources policies and procedures like other employees.
The timing of the incidents is notable, occurring during Baker's transition period between being elected and officially taking office as chief justice. This transition period may have contributed to the employees' failure to recognize her and the subsequent misunderstandings that led to the harassment allegations.
The court's decision to dismiss the case also renders moot Baker's motion to withdraw the appeal, as noted in the case caption. This suggests that at some point during the proceedings, Baker may have reconsidered her strategy of seeking judicial review of the administrative findings.
The involvement of the Arkansas Judicial Discipline and Disability Commission adds another layer of complexity to the situation. The JDDC is responsible for investigating judicial misconduct, and the mention of employee concerns about cooperation with a separate JDDC investigation suggests there may be additional proceedings related to Baker's conduct.
The case demonstrates the limitations of judicial power when it comes to internal administrative matters, even when those matters involve the state's highest-ranking judicial official. By dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction, the Arkansas Supreme Court maintained the separation between judicial and administrative functions within the court system.
The administrative process will now proceed without judicial interference, allowing the court system's human resources department and other administrative bodies to handle the matter according to established policies and procedures. This outcome preserves the integrity of both the judicial and administrative processes while ensuring that harassment allegations are addressed through appropriate channels.
The case serves as a precedent for future situations where judicial officials might attempt to use their courts' judicial power to challenge administrative findings against them, establishing that such matters must be resolved through administrative rather than judicial means.