Karen Baker, Chief Justice of the Arkansas Supreme Court v. Marty Sullivan, Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts
Opinion
Cite as 2025 Ark. 215 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CV-25-47
Opinion Delivered: December 11, 2025
KAREN BAKER, CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT ORIGINAL ACTION AND V. ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION TO MARTY SULLIVAN, DIRECTOR OF WITHDRAW APPEAL MOOT. THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS
PER CURIAM
This court is tasked with resolving a unique matter. Karen Baker, Chief Justice of
the Arkansas Supreme Court, filed an action in this court against Marty Sullivan, Director
of the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC). She titled the filing a Notice of Appeal
and Motion to Dismiss in which she disputes the AOC human-resource department’s
finding of harassment against her. We consider this an attempt to judicially appeal initial
findings, and we hold that we lack jurisdiction over this internal appeal. We dismiss the
action so that it can be handled as an internal administrative matter of the Arkansas Supreme
Court.
On December 4 and 5, 2024, then Chief Justice Elect Baker walked through several
areas within AOC and entered individual offices. Apparently, some AOC employees did
not recognize Chief Justice Elect Baker and were not comfortable with the questions she asked, her comments, and the instructions she gave them to open a locked office. Later,
several employees filed complaints with the human-resource department alleging they were
targeted and harassed based on gender, race, and how they voted in the recent election of
the Arkansas Supreme Court’s Chief Justice. One employee expressed concern about being
asked whether the employee was cooperating with a separate Arkansas Judicial Discipline
and Disability Commission (JDDC) investigation.
The human-resource department completed an investigation and concluded in a
written report that then Chief Justice Elect Baker harassed employees. Chief Justice Baker
alleges, although it is not in the record, that Director Sullivan sent her the report and told
her that he was required to turn it over to the JDDC. Chief Justice Baker also alleges that
Director Sullivan recommended that JDDC instruct her to cease interactions with the
involved employees. She was told that if she objected to the findings, she could file an appeal
with the Arkansas Supreme Court within seven days.
Subsequently, Chief Justice Baker filed a notice of appeal along with a motion to
dismiss. It was unusual in the sense that Chief Justice Baker simultaneously filed the matter
yet asked this court to dismiss it. Among Chief Justice Baker’s many objections, she contests
the harassment, the process, and the AOC’s authority over her. She also objects to this
court’s jurisdiction. Director Sullivan responded by agreeing that this court does not have
jurisdiction and asking that we dismiss Chief Justice Baker’s action. He argues that it is an
internal, nonjudicial matter.
To begin, the court needed a record, and we ordered the parties to file one. Baker v.
Sullivan, 2025 Ark. 17 (per curiam). We noted that “if the matter was intended as an
2 administrative appeal, then a record is required.” Id. at 2. We ordered Chief Justice Baker
“to file the omitted material, including all complaints and the underlying human-resources
report whose findings and recommendations she challenges.” Id. After receiving the
supplemental record, Chief Justice Baker moved to withdraw the notice of appeal and
motion to dismiss—in other words, to withdraw her initial filing in the case. Given the
unprecedented nature of the filing, we ordered the parties to submit briefs. No party
requested expediting the matter, so it is before the court in its regular course.
Jurisdiction is a threshold issue. Minor Child v. Ark. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 2019 Ark.
243, at 3, 582 S.W.3d 843, 844. Both parties argue that this court lacks jurisdiction. We
agree with the parties—we lack jurisdiction over Chief Justice Baker’s notice of appeal and
dismiss it. This court has both original and appellate jurisdiction. Amendment 80, §2(D)
establishes the court’s jurisdiction as follows:
(1) Statewide appellate jurisdiction;
(2) Original jurisdiction to issue writs of quo warranto to all persons holding judicial office, and to officers of political corporations when the question involved is the legal existence of such corporations;
(3) Original jurisdiction to answer questions of state law certified by a court of the United States, which may be exercised pursuant to Supreme Court rule;
(4) Original jurisdiction to determine sufficiency of state initiative and referendum petitions and proposed constitutional amendments; and
(5) Only such other original jurisdiction as provided by this Constitution.
The constitution also provides that “[t]he Supreme Court shall exercise general
superintending control over all courts of the state.” Ark. Const., amend. 80, § 4.
3 This matter falls outside our original jurisdiction as it does not involve a writ of quo
warranto; a certified question from federal court; an initiative or referendum; or other
constitutional grant of original jurisdiction pertaining to this appeal. Nor do we have
appellate jurisdiction. The filing does not challenge any order over which we exercise
appellate review. Ark. R. App. P.–Civ 2(a) (permitting appeals from orders entered in circuit
court); see also Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 2-4 (permitting petitions for review from the Arkansas
Court of Appeals). And if Chief Justice Baker is attempting to appeal under the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA), she has not had a quasi-judicial adjudication, and even
then, the court, and AOC by extension, is excluded. See Ark. Code Ann. § 25-15-202(2)(A)
(Repl. 2024).
If Chief Justice Baker sought to appeal the AOC human-resource department’s
findings of harassment, she chose the wrong avenue. By filing this action, Chief Justice
Baker chose a judicial proceeding, rather than the proper internal administrative review.
Chief Justice Baker acknowledged that the deadline for requesting a review of the
internal administrative decision was January 23, 2025. Rather than filing the internal
administrative appeal, through either the version of the AOC handbook or the Supreme
Court handbook, she sought improper judicial review.1 Filing such an internal
administrative appeal, rather than an original action suit, would have been the proper process
to raise objections or seek review. See e.g., Hudson v. Ark. Admin. Off. of the Courts, 2024
Ark. 134, at 3, 687 S.W.3d 513, 515.
1 Chief Justice Baker did not include in the record or supplemental record any documentation showing a contemporaneous internal appeal.
4 Our dismissal here does not impact any separate JDDC review of Chief Justice
Baker’s actions under the Arkansas Code of Judicial Conduct. Chief Justice Baker argues
that the proper remedy is for the JDDC to resolve the harassment and other complaints.
JDDC should promptly resolve the complaints. There are employees who have not received
a resolution of their serious charges and a Chief Justice who has been limited in her ability
to interact with many senior staff. It has been a year, and the delay simply cannot continue.
JDDC must make resolution of the complaints against Chief Justice Baker a priority to
preserve confidence in the judiciary.
Both the original action and the attempt to appeal the administrative decision are
dismissed. The motion to withdraw is moot.2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
2025 Ark. 215 (Karen Baker, Chief Justice of the Arkansas Supreme Court v. Marty Sullivan, Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.