Kentucky High Court Blocks Judicial Impeachment

You’re reading State Court Report’s biweekly newsletter. Subscribe to receive it in your inbox.

The Kentucky Supreme Court ruled this month that the state legislature lacks the power to impeach a judge based on its disagreement with the judge’s rulings. It was an assertion of judicial authority at a moment when courts’ independence has been under assault, including in Kentucky. The 5–1 decision, authored by Chief Justice Debra Lambert, blocked impeachment proceedings against state trial judge Julie Muth Goodman. It is already sparking blowback from the legislature.

The Kentucky decision comes amidst an increasingly hostile political climate for judges at both the state and federal level, including calls for judicial impeachment by President Trump, members of Congress, and other political leaders. In Kentucky, along with the impeachment effort against Goodman, the state house of representatives also considered (but did not proceed with) an impeachment petition against state supreme court justice Pamela Goodwine for a claimed conflict of interest that Goodwine argued has no basis. (Goodwine recused herself from participating in the Goodman case.)

With respect to Goodman, the impeachment targeted six cases in which she had been overturned on appeal, many relating to criminal trials or sentencings wherein Goodman had sided with the defendant. The state senate was scheduled to hold Goodman’s impeachment trial in April, which could have led to her removal from office. 

In its ruling, the Kentucky Supreme Court declared the articles of impeachment against Goodman to be void and blocked further proceedings against her. The court pointed to procedural defects with the impeachment petition and planned trial, but its most significant conclusion related to the definition of “misdemeanors in office,” the basis for impeachment provided under the Kentucky Constitution.

The court concluded that an “individual’s disagreement with a judge’s ruling, or even the fact that a judge’s ruling has been deemed an abuse of discretion by an appellate court (no matter how scathingly), does not and cannot constitute a misdemeanor in office.” Rather, the state constitution leaves it to the judicial branch to address the kinds of allegations raised in Goodman’s impeachment petition, either through the appellate process or through judicial disciplinary proceedings. This structure, the court explained, helps preserve judicial independence and enables judges to perform their constitutional duties. 

The court also rejected arguments that the scope of the legislature’s impeachment power is a “political question” outside the scope of judicial review. Under the Kentucky Constitution’s strict separation of powers provisions, the court explained, the job of ensuring that the other branches do not violate the Constitution lies with the judicial branch. To leave the legislature with “complete, unchecked power” over impeachment “would not be co-equal,” the court argued. “It would be tyrannical.”

In the immediate aftermath of the decision, it looked like Kentucky might be barreling toward a constitutional crisis. Senate leadership made ambiguous statements indicating that they might proceed with Goodman’s impeachment trial despite the court’s order. But on April 15, the senate blinked — at least for now — agreeing to table the trial. 

Yet Kentucky’s battle between the branches doesn’t look to be over. The legislature has left open the possibility that it could revisit Goodman’s impeachment after judicial discipline complaints filed against her run their course, despite the supreme court’s order. And the House has now referred Justice Goodwine’s impeachment petition to an investigative committee, raising the possibility that it could proceed against her in the 2027 legislative session. 

The house and senate also issued an unusual public censure against another justice on the court, Kelly Thompson, for “intemperate remarks” in his concurrence in the Goodman case. Thompson noted in his concurrence that filing inappropriate impeachment proceedings could run afoul of criminal prohibitions against intimidating participants in the legal process and that it could subject lawyers involved in the effort to disciplinary sanctions. Some members of the legislature took that as a threat. Thompson appeared uncowed by the censure, saying that he was “honored” that he got under the senate president’s skin. 

The Kentucky high court’s ruling and Thompson’s concurrence are important reminders that courts have tools to respond to assaults on judicial independence. But I suspect that ultimately it’s public opinion — whether for or against the continued targeting of Kentucky judges — that will carry the day. In my experience, most people see the value of judicial independence in our constitutional system when they’re asked to think about it. The problem is they rarely are. With the Kentucky legislature not in session again until 2027, Kentuckians have a prime window for public education and engagement about the judiciary.

Alicia Bannon is editor in chief for State Court Report. She is also director of the Judiciary Program at the Brennan Center for Justice.

Suggested Citation: Alicia Bannon, Kentucky High Court Blocks Judicial Impeachment, Sᴛᴀᴛᴇ Cᴏᴜʀᴛ Rᴇᴘᴏʀᴛ (Apr. 23, 2026), https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/kentucky-high-court-blocks-judicial-impeachment