It’s not unusual for the judiciary and legislature to butt heads — lawmakers pass bills and, if someone challenges them, it’s up to judges to decide if they stand up to constitutional scrutiny. And while legislators have in turn criticized and praised the courts, it’s not often they say they intend to ignore their rulings altogether.
But this session, legislators engaged in a rarely-used proceeding that raised the hackles of a majority of Kentucky Supreme Court justices. In a largely partisan vote, Republicans voted to impeach a Lexington judge because they took issue with her judicial decision-making. When the Supreme Court dismissed the proceedings, saying the impeachment violates the separation of powers, the GOP-controlled state Senate passed a resolution saying it did not consider the order binding. They paused the trial, but said they’d pick it up again if needed.
The consequences of a successful impeachment and conviction are stark. The state constitution says that any civil officer, including the governor, can be impeached for “any misdemeanors in office.” If the House impeaches and the Senate convicts, then the individual is removed from office and disqualified from holding any other state office “of honor, trust or profit.”
It has been used sparingly in Kentucky history and only one judge has been successfully convicted in the last two centuries.
As the tensions between the Supreme Court and General Assembly ratcheted higher in the final days of the session, it became clear that the discussion over impeachment powers isn’t over yet. GOP senators made clear they could pick up their impeachment efforts again next year, and in the final hour of the legislative session, the House referred two high profile impeachment petitions — including one against a Supreme Court justice — to an interim committee.
“I think they created the constitutional crisis,” Stivers said of the Supreme Court. “Then they, all of a sudden, say, ‘Wait a minute, you don't have that authority.’ The Constitution says we do.”
A “constitutional crisis” refers to a conflict that the constitution is unable to resolve; for example, if one branch of government refuses to defer to the checks and balances granted to another. In this case, both the judiciary and legislative branch argue the other is encroaching on their powers.
What makes the General Assembly’s impeachment power special and why are some lawmakers putting their foot down? And what counts as a “misdemeanor” in office anyway? Here’s what you need to know:
What case set this debate over impeachments in motion?
Over the course of the General Assembly’s 2026 session, six people, including current and former lawmakers, submitted petitions calling for three judges, a board of education chair, a jailer and a state Supreme Court Justice to be ousted from their elected positions.
While lawmakers dismissed two, and asked for responses to three, they only pursued a trial and impeachment against one civil officer — Fayette County Circuit Judge Julie Muth Goodman, who has served as a judge in Lexington since 2008. Former GOP state Rep. Killian Timoney, who is once again running for office, filed the petition against Goodman. He, and later a majority of House lawmakers, accused Goodman of willfully ignoring case law and precedent in six cases that came before her.
“If you're a judge and you do your job honorably and you get it wrong, we will fight for you. We will never have these proceedings. But if you will say, ‘I know the law says this, but I'm going to do that instead’ that you do not deserve the black robe that you have been entrusted with,” said Rep. Jason Nemes, a Republican from Middletown who chaired the House impeachment committee.
Five of the six cases remain under appeal, meaning that under the Code of Judicial Conduct, Goodman could not speak on the specifics of the cases nor explain her decision making. But at a lengthy hearing in March, Goodman defended herself to the extent she said she could, pointing instead to summaries prepared by her lawyers. She said she did not regret her decisions and that she remains an impartial jurist.
“My answer has always been and continues to be the oath I took and my moral compass would have required me to rule exactly as I did. So for that I have no apologies,” Goodman said. “I would love to be able to tell you why I ruled those the way I did in each and every one of these cases.”
One case became a focal point of the impeachment effort, with a family member coming before the House committee to describe his experience in Goodman’s court. In the still-pending case, Goodman dismissed a murder indictment against a man who is accused of striking a woman’s car at 96 mph after ignoring a red light. A Court of Appeals panel reversed her decision in a scathing opinion and accused Goodman of abusing her power “in a way that reflects poorly on the judiciary as a whole.” Since the matter is still before the court, Goodman was unable to comment.
What is an impeachable offense? How does Judge Goodman fit into this?
The Kentucky Constitution is vague about what constitutes an impeachable offense. It merely states that all civil servants can be impeached for “any misdemeanors in office” and that they are still liable for criminal charges. Nemes argued that wording does not solely encompass technically criminal behavior, but also inappropriate actions a person takes within their official duties, as deemed so by lawmakers.
“What is the pattern that connects these six cases across several years? It is this judge, Goodman, sees herself as a law unto herself,” Nemes said.
While Republicans said the six cases pulled out in the petition show Goodman disregards the law when it suits her, most Democrats said lawmakers shouldn’t use judicial decision making as grounds for impeachment.
On largely partisan lines, the Kentucky House voted to impeach Goodman on five articles and sent them to the Senate for trial. The articles remain there, tabled, even after the Kentucky Supreme Court ordered them moot.
According to some detractors, the effort to impeach Goodman is unprecedented. Impeachments in Kentucky are very rare and generally for criminal acts. For example, the last public servant booted by the legislature was former Commonwealth’s Attorney Ronnie Goldy in 2023 — he was later convicted on 14 counts for a bribery scheme in which he solicited nude photos in exchange for favors.
University of Kentucky law professor Josh Douglas said Goodman’s impeachment is remarkably different than the state’s five previous successful impeachments and indictments.
“The impeachments we've seen in history have all been about some sort of abuse of the office, bribery or undue influence. Here, the legislature cited six cases that essentially they think Judge Goodman did a bad job on,” Douglas said. “I don't know if she did a good or bad job on these cases, but that … should not be the purview of the legislature to oversee specific cases in the way that the judge is ruling on them.”
Impeachment petitions themselves are quite uncommon. Although several were filed this year, in most legislative sessions they hardly come up at all. The last time lawmakers had to review such a large swatch of citizen-filed impeachment petitions was 2021, when Gov. Andy Beshear, then-Attorney General Daniel Cameron and state Rep. Robert Goforth all faced petitions. But the impeachment committee, also chaired by Nemes, decided not to recommend any to the full House.
What did the Kentucky Supreme Court ruling say?
In a ruling that got some heads turning, the Kentucky Supreme Court halted the Goodman impeachment proceedings altogether. Five of seven justices argued the impeachment was fatally flawed because the petition itself was improperly filed. They also argued that the judicial branch has the constitutional authority to deal with the accusations made against Goodman and lawmakers overstepped their bounds when they pursued an impeachment to oust her.
Chief Justice Debra Lambert, who penned the majority decision, revealed for the first time that the Judicial Conduct Commission is in the midst of investigating Goodman’s conduct. Lambert argues the constitutionally-created commission charged with suspending or removing judges “for good cause” is the proper place for the complaints against Goodman to be heard.
“Yet the Respondents would have us interpret it (or more to the point, not interpret it) such that the Legislature may have the complete, unchecked power to impeach judicial branch officials for matters which our Constitution gives this branch the authority to address,” Lambert wrote. “This would not be co-equal. It would not be constitutional. It would be tyrannical.”
Justice Shea Nickell was the lone dissenting opinion. He argued that while he does not condone the proceedings per se, the court doesn’t have the authority to stop them either.
“A plain reading of the pertinent constitutional provisions and consideration of their historical background counsels against judicial intervention,” Nickell wrote.
Justice Pamela Goodwine recused herself from the decision – she is also facing an impeachment petition, although lawmakers chose not to act on it this session.
In a concurring opinion, Justice Kelly Thompson took an even more hardline stance than his counterparts, arguing legislators may be attempting to influence judicial decision making by going forward with impeachment petitions he deemed “frivolous.”
“We cannot let this attack on our branch of government go unchecked,” Thompson wrote. “By doing so, the legislature expresses an extreme distrust and hostility to our branch of government and tramples on our judicial independence, a cornerstone of our democratic system.”
Why do Republican lawmakers take issue with the ruling? Why did they censure a justice?
It may be an understatement to say Republican lawmakers were frustrated with the Supreme Court decision. GOP senators who had been preparing to try Goodman under the allegations said the Supreme Court’s ruling holds no sway over them.
Instead of dismissing the impeachment, the Senate impeachment committee tabled it indefinitely. Sen. Brandon Storm, the GOP chair of the Senate’s impeachment committee, said they would wait until the Judicial Conduct Committee did its work, but reserved the right to pick up the inquiry again next year.
"I cannot stress enough that the actions this committee takes today are driven by two factors only, the Senate's duties under the Constitution and fairness to the defendant,” said Storm, from London. “It is the sense of this committee that those two concerns can be best served by tabling further proceedings in this matter."
GOP lawmakers are leaning on an important line in the Kentucky Constitution – in fact, it’s in the article of the constitution that establishes the court system. “The impeachment powers of the General Assembly shall remain inviolate,” it reads.
This journalist must admit, she had to search the exact definition of “inviolate”; in legal contracts, it refers to a right that may not be broken, infringed or impaired.
Lawyer and former GOP state Sen. Whitney Westerfield has been an outspoken critic of the Supreme Court’s decision. He told KPR that, whether the courts like it or not, the constitution sets up impeachment as the ultimate check on the two other branches of government. As such, the Supreme Court had no right to intervene in the proceedings.
“There is nothing that stops the legislature from using that power other than public sentiment, public will and the desire of each individual legislature to agree to it or not, to believe that those arguments are valid and meritorious for a claim for impeachment,” Westerfield said.
He said the constitution is perfectly clear in this case — and if some legislators feel it should be changed to put restrictions or allow court oversight on impeachment powers, then they can put it on the ballot as a constitutional amendment. As it stands, Kentucky’s governing document is clear, the former state senator said.
“If people are unhappy with the standard for what ought to merit impeachment, there's a process for changing that,” Westerfield said.
Chief Justice Lambert interpreted the section differently. She wrote in her decision that impeachment powers over the judiciary are not unlimited and the fact that the same constitution also created the Judicial Conduct Commission means their powers must be discrete in some way.
“While there certainly may be an overlap in the responsibilities of the JCC and the legislature when it comes to misconduct that is serious enough to qualify as a crime in office, more minor matters remain in the exclusive jurisdiction of the JCC,” Lambert wrote.
Senate President Stivers said that, had lawmakers known sooner the commission was actively investigating Goodman, perhaps the entire impeachment inquiry could have been avoided. As it is, Stivers said that he has heard many complaints of the JCC.
“It became quite evident that people were afraid to file claims in front of the Judicial Conduct Commission, because they were like, well, what happens? We have statistics that they very rarely act on complaints,” Stivers, of Manchester, said. “We're going to see what they do, and then if they don't do anything, we can come back and take action.”
Westerfield said he too has heard from lawyers who said they abstain from bringing claims before the independent commission for fear of retaliation.
“I'll tell you that 100% I'm not eager to complain about judges that I'm in front of all the time,” Westerfield said. “I'd worry about my clients, and you know, are they going to get a fair shake if it's a judge that I feel I've got to complain to the Judicial Conduct Commission about? I can tell you there are attorneys right now that do not complain because they're worried about retribution.”
In a separate complaint, both House and Senate GOP leaders passed resolutions condemning Thompson for making “intemperate remarks” in his concurring opinion. They especially took issue with a portion of his opinion that said, if lawmakers use the impeachment power as a means to intimidate judges, it could be a felony offense.
Stivers said that went too far and no lawmaker should be threatened for carrying out their constitutional duty. The resolution he and House speaker David Osborne sponsored in each chamber censured Thompson and called on the Judicial Conduct Commission to investigate him.
“We have a Supreme Court justice who has threatened me with law license forfeiture or suspension and potentially loss of my personal freedom with a Class D felony as he defined them, not me,” Stivers said on the Senate floor in the waning hours of the final day of the legislative session. “He has interfered with the process. He has threatened all lawyers and anybody else that may participate in this.”
Thompson for his part said he was “shocked and honored” by the censure, saying he would not back down from his opinion. He told Kentucky Public Radio that he holds elections as “sacrosanct” and any effort to remove someone elected from office must only be done in the most extreme cases.
“It is religious to me that an elected official cannot be removed after the people elected him unless he commits a serious offense, and the legislature is trying to impeach and remove people from office because of their opinion,” Thompson told KPR shortly after the resolution passed the Senate.
Why are some kicking around the term “constitutional crisis”?
Douglas, despite criticizing the legislature’s decision to continue with an impeachment, said he isn’t sure that the Supreme Court had the constitutional right to stop the Senate from moving forward.
“I'm not saying the Kentucky Supreme Court was wrong. I'm not saying it was right. I'm saying that it raises really interesting constitutional questions which really haven't been resolved previously in any jurisdiction that I'm aware of,” Douglas said.
There are two schools of thought around the Supreme Court decision. Even among scholars who say they aren’t sure the court had the right to stop the Senate from moving forward, some still argue that the rule of law has to win out. No matter how lawmakers feel about the issue or their own legal interpretation, Louisville Democratic Sen. Cassie Chambers Armstrong said the Supreme Court gets to determine what the constitution says.
“Although I often disagree with things courts do — the United States Supreme Court, the Kentucky Supreme Court, all kinds of courts — and I express that disagreement, I ultimately respect that authority and say I disagree with the opinion, but I will respect its authority, and I will abide by it,” Chambers Armstrong said. “It concerns me when we attack our judiciary. It concerns me when we attack our legal institutions.”
Chambers Armstrong, who is also a law professor at the University of Louisville, said lawmakers should not be discussing whether or not to follow orders handed down by the state’s highest court. The Supreme Court has the final say here, she said.
She said the rule applies the same to laws the General Assembly passes — the state’s top court is the final arbiter of whether it passes constitutional muster or not, and ignoring them could have dire consequences.
“That is the collapse of our democratic institutions. That is the collapse of the rule of law. That is collapse, a collapse of everything that we hold sacred and special about what it means to be an American, and what it means to live in a democracy, and what it means to live the great Commonwealth of Kentucky,” Chambers Armstrong said.
But Westerfield said the impeachment power is a unique example in which the legislature has supreme power, and lawmakers should disregard any infringement of that power.
“The court doesn't have any power under, over or related to impeachments in any way, and to issue a writ that that dictates what the legislative branch can do on something that is, in the court's own word, an inviolate power solely held by the legislature, I think, is defunct on delivery,” Westerfield said.
