According to news reports and dissenting opinions filed with the court, Chief Judge Boyce F. Martin, Jr. manipulated court procedures so as to ensure that the final ruling would be favorable to his personal views. The case before the court (Grutter v. James) involved race-based admissions policies at the University of Michigan’s law school.

"People can agree or disagree with a certain judge’s philosophy," said JW President Tom Fitton. "But when a judge goes so far as to manipulate the process and violate the law, there can be no justice. This is where we draw the line."

In this particular instance, what is being contested is not the ruling of the case, but rather the process used to decide the case. In effect, the evidence shows the case was rigged. For five months, Chief Judge Martin improperly withheld a petition filed by counsel requesting that the full court of appeals hear the case. During this period, two Republican appointed justices were given senior status, rendering them unable to participate in a vote on the case according to court rules. The result was a 5-4 liberal majority, giving Chief Judge Martin what he evidently wanted a ruling in favor of considering race in admissions policies.

Though Chief Judge Martin’s motives cannot be determined with certainty, even the appearance of impropriety is reason enough for concern. Furthermore, regardless of his motives, the Internal Operating Procedures of the Sixth Circuit were not followed, which is reason enough for a judicial misconduct complaint.

"It’s important that the American people have faith that judges don’t ‘fix’ cases," said Fitton. "The standard for judicial conduct is not only doing the right thing, but doing things that don’t call to question judicial ethics. Clearly in this case this standard was not met."