The Arkansas Supreme Court has officially stepped back from a highly unusual case involving its own leader, Chief Justice Karen Baker, ruling that it does not have the authority to review an internal administrative finding of harassment against her.
In a brief but decisive opinion delivered in December 2025, the state’s highest court dismissed the action filed by Chief Justice Baker against Marty Sullivan, the Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC). The court clarified that the dispute over the AOC human-resources department’s finding of harassment must be resolved through internal administrative channels, not through a direct judicial appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Unprecedented Filing
The situation leading to this ruling began in late 2024, before Justice Baker officially took office as Chief Justice. While walking through AOC offices, then Chief Justice Elect Baker engaged with several employees. These interactions, which included questions, comments, and an instruction to open a locked office, reportedly made some employees uncomfortable.
Following these events, several AOC employees filed complaints with the HR department, alleging they had been targeted and harassed based on their gender, race, and how they voted in the recent election for Chief Justice. One employee also raised concerns about being questioned regarding a separate investigation by the Arkansas Judicial Discipline and Disability Commission (JDDC).
The HR department concluded its investigation and issued a written report finding that Chief Justice Baker had, in fact, harassed the employees. According to Baker’s later allegations (which the court noted were not part of the official record), Director Sullivan informed her of the finding and stated he was obligated to forward the report to the JDDC. Crucially, Baker was allegedly told that if she objected to the findings, she had the option to file an appeal with the Arkansas Supreme Court within seven days.
A Procedural Mix-Up
Chief Justice Baker took the advice, filing what she labeled a “Notice of Appeal and Motion to Dismiss.” The filing was immediately peculiar because she simultaneously asked the court to hear her appeal while also requesting that the court dismiss the entire matter. She contested the harassment finding, the process used, and the AOC’s authority over her.
Interestingly, the other party involved, Director Sullivan, agreed with Baker on one critical point: the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction. Sullivan argued the entire matter was internal and nonjudicial.
The Supreme Court initially tried to establish a proper record, ordering Baker to submit the HR report and the employee complaints she was challenging. After receiving the supplemental materials, Baker changed course and moved to withdraw her initial appeal—essentially asking to take back the case she had filed.
Jurisdiction: The Decisive Factor
The court, acting through a Per Curiam opinion (meaning it was issued on behalf of the entire court rather than a single judge), stated that jurisdiction is the first question any court must address.
“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,” the opinion stated plainly.
The court meticulously reviewed its constitutional powers under Amendment 80, Section 2(D). These powers include statewide appellate jurisdiction, original jurisdiction over certain writs (like *quo warranto*), answering certified questions from federal courts, and reviewing initiative petitions.
The court found that Baker’s appeal fit none of these categories. It was not an appeal from a circuit court order, nor did it qualify for review under the rules governing appellate procedure. Furthermore, the court noted that even if Baker intended this to be an appeal under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the AOC itself is generally excluded from that process, and she had not gone through a formal quasi-judicial adjudication first.
Internal Process Ignored
The core of the dismissal rested on the fact that Chief Justice Baker bypassed the correct internal procedure. The court pointed out that she had a deadline of January 23, 2025, to file an appeal internally, either through the AOC handbook or the Supreme Court handbook. Instead of initiating that internal administrative review, she jumped straight into a judicial proceeding.
“Filing such an internal administrative appeal, rather than an original action suit, would have been the proper process to raise objections or seek review,” the opinion noted, referencing prior case law.
JDDC Review Remains Open
While dismissing the judicial action, the Supreme Court made clear that this ruling does not interfere with the separate process being handled by the Judicial Discipline and Disability Commission (JDDC).
The court stressed the need for prompt resolution by the JDDC. “There has been a year, and the delay simply cannot continue,” the opinion emphasized. The court urged the JDDC to prioritize resolving the serious charges against the Chief Justice to maintain public confidence in the state’s judiciary.
Ultimately, the court dismissed both the original action and the attempted administrative appeal. Consequently, Chief Justice Baker’s later motion to withdraw the filing was deemed moot—meaning it was irrelevant since the underlying case was already thrown out.
The opinion was delivered by the court, with Chief Justice Baker herself, Justice Hudson, and Justice Hiland not participating in the decision, reflecting the internal nature of the dispute.