LANSING, MI — A federal appeals court has ruled that a Detroit judge does not enjoy judicial immunity for the dramatic detention of a teenage girl who fell asleep in his courtroom, a decision that lets the family's civil rights lawsuit proceed to discovery.
A panel of three judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Cincinnati denied 36th District Court Judge Kenneth King's request to dismiss the civil suit filed by the girl, Eva Goodman, and her mother, Latoreya Till. The ruling, dated Aug. 21, suggests there is enough evidence to show King's conduct was not a protected judicial act.
The decision is not a final judgment on the case. It simply allows the original lawsuit to advance to the discovery phase, which includes the possibility of requiring King to sit for a deposition.
Judicial immunity is a broad shield that generally protects judges from suits over actions taken in an official capacity. The appellate opinion, written by Circuit Judge Ronald Lee Gilman, drew a clear line.
"Not all actions taken by a judge in his courtroom are protected by judicial immunity," the opinion reads. "All reasonable jurists would presumably agree, for example, that a judge cannot shield himself from suit if he draws a firearm and shoots an observer who has dozed off in his courtroom. Or if he sexually assaults a litigant. A line must therefore be drawn between the actions that a judge can take in his courtroom under the cloak of judicial immunity and those that he cannot."
James Harrington, an attorney with Fieger Law representing Goodman and her mother, said the ruling came as no surprise.
"This was a judge exercising a function that judges don't do. It was directly meant to embarrass and scare," Harrington said. "He was rogue. He was acting outside of the bounds."
Harrington said the case can now move to discovery. He added that while the judge's attorney has his phone number, he is preparing for a trial that could arrive in early 2027.
"Civil rights are extremely important. They're an extremely important function to maintaining order in our society. If they do want to resolve, it's not going to be cheap. Civil rights are far too important," he said.
King, in theory, could appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. Todd Perkins, a Detroit attorney representing King, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The incident dates to August 2024, when the 15-year-old joined other children on a field trip to the 36th District Court as part of a summer program. After watching a hearing, the group remained in the gallery while King addressed them. At one point, the girl dozed off. Her mother later said the family had been without a permanent place to live and did not find a spot to sleep until late the night before.
Goodman was first reprimanded. When she dozed off again, King had a bailiff remove her from the room. She was handcuffed, forced to wear jail garb, and kept in a room normally reserved for people accused of crimes. King then brought her back into court, where a criminal defense attorney represented her in a mock hearing. He admonished her repeatedly before asking the other teens to raise their hands if they believed she should be jailed. Some raised their hands, but King released her.
Much of the encounter was captured on King's YouTube livestream. King regularly broadcast his proceedings online and built a sizable, devoted viewership.
At the time, King told the Free Press he believed he had acted appropriately. "I wasn't trying to punish the young lady. What I was trying to do was, I was trying to serve as a deterrence," he said in a 2024 phone interview.
The lawyers and the appellate court focused on that "scared straight" approach, arguing it far exceeds official judicial duties. King had contended his actions were official, but the court noted that no case number, file, or other standard documents associated with typical judicial proceedings existed.
"This matters because the existence of a court record or order indicates that a judge's actions constituted judicial acts," the ruling states. "The absence of such an order or record here therefore suggests the opposite − that Judge King's actions were nonjudicial."
The case also reflects the limited public recourse available when a judge is accused of misconduct. At the time of the incident, 36th District Chief Judge William McConico temporarily removed King from the bench and required him to complete training. Upon his return, King was shifted away from the early stages of high-profile felony cases and reassigned to traffic court.
In November 2025, the Judicial Tenure Commission, the sole oversight body for Michigan judges, took the uncommon step of publicly confirming an investigation into King's actions involving Goodman. The commission accused him of violating multiple judicial canons and rules, including failing to treat Goodman with respect. King is contesting that case, which could lead to additional discipline up to and including removal by the Michigan Supreme Court. A public hearing in that matter is set for September.