From Friday's decision by Judge Shalina Kumar (E.D. Mich.) in Susselman v. Attorney Grievance Comm'n (for more on the Sixth Circuit's decision rejecting the underlying lawsuit against the protesters, see this post):
Plaintiffs Marc Susselman … sue[s] the Michigan Attorney Grievance Commission ("[AGC]"), its Board of Commissioners, and Michael Goetz, in his official capacity as the Administrator of the [AGC] (collectively, "Defendants"), alleging violations of [his] First and Fourteenth Amendment rights….
In 2019, Susselman learned that a group of protesters were in front of Beth Israel synagogue holding signs with messages that included "Jewish Power Corrupts", "Resist Jewish Power", and "No More Holocaust Movies." These protests had been occurring every Saturday morning since 2003, and Susselman felt compelled to file suit in federal court seeking an injunction "placing reasonable time, place and matter restrictions on [the protesters'] conduct, e.g., requiring that they be a certain distance from the synagogue property; that they be prohibited from protesting during the time period when the Sabbath service was being conducted; and that the number of protesters, and the number of signs they used, be limited to a reasonable number." …
Defendants in that case moved to dismiss the complaint asserting plaintiffs did not have standing to sue, and the protestors' conduct was protected by the First Amendment. Judge Roberts ultimately agreed with defendants that plaintiffs did not have standing to sue because their emotional distress did not constitute a concrete injury, and defendants' conduct was protected by the First Amendment "even if it disturbs, is offensive, and causes emotional distress." The case was dismissed.
Susselman appealed Judge Roberts' decision dismissing the case, challenging her ruling that plaintiffs' emotional distress did not constitute a concrete injury. The Sixth Circuit reversed Judge Roberts' ruling that plaintiffs did not have standing, but ruled that the protestors' signs were protected by the First Amendment….
Defendants moved for attorney fees on the basis that the lawsuit was frivolous, and Judge Roberts awarded fees in the amount of $158,721.75 to be paid jointly and severally by plaintiffs and Susselman. Susselman, convinced that Judge Roberts' rulings in the case were "motivated either by anti-Semitic sentiments, or by anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian sentiments, or by both…." appealed Judge Roberts' decision. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the attorney fee award, agreeing the lawsuit was frivolous and found that the record did not support Susselman's claims that Judge Roberts was biased against his clients. Susselman then filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, which was denied.
On October 18, 2022, Susselman filed a formal complaint against Judge Roberts with the Sixth Circuit. In his complaint he asserted that "by virtue of the statements in her decisions which, taken together, had the distinct appearance of being anti-Semitic and/or anti-Israel, she had violated the Canons of the Code of Conduct of United States Judges.["] Chief Judge Sutton dismissed Susselman's complaint on September 7, 2023. Susselman filed a petition to have his complaint be reviewed by a judicial counsel of the Sixth Circuit, and on March 26, 2024, the court issued an order affirming Chief Judge Sutton's dismissal of the complaint against Judge Roberts.
