FRANKFORT — Four days from now, the Kentucky Senate is scheduled to open an impeachment trial against a Lexington judge. There is only one problem: the state’s highest court has already ordered it to stop. The Kentucky Supreme Court ruled 5-1 on April 6 that the General Assembly’s impeachme nt of Fayette Circuit Judge Julie Muth Goodman violated the separation of powers under the Kentucky Constitution — declaring the articles of impeachment void and directing lawmakers to dismiss the proceedings. The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice Debra Hembree Lambert, said allowing the legislature unchecked authority to impeach judges over their rulings “would not be co-equal. It would not be constitutional. It would be tyrannical.” Senate President Robert Stivers has signaled the chamber intends to proceed anyway. In a statement released April 8, Stivers said the Senate was “carefully reviewing” the court’s opinion — and then released a full schedule for the trial: House prosecutors present April 16, 17 and 20; Goodman and her attorneys respond April 21 through 23; the Senate Impeachment Committee delivers its findings to the full chamber April 24. All dates are listed as “subject to change as determined by the Senate or committee.” If the Senate moves forward Thursday, it would mark a moment without precedent in the Commonwealth’s 233-year history: a legislative body openly defying a direct order from the state’s Supreme Court to halt a constitutional proceeding. A Lexington judge, Lexington cases Goodman has served as a circuit judge in Fayette County’s 22nd Judicial Circuit since 2019, when voters elected her to fill an unexpired term. Fayette County voters reelected her to a full eight-year term in 2022. Over 18 years on the bench — first as a district judge, then a circuit judge — she has presided over roughly 72,000 cases. The impeachment petition, filed Jan. 28 by former Republican state Rep. Killian Timoney of Lexington, cited six of those cases. Timoney represented House District 45 before losing a GOP primary in 2024 and is now running to reclaim that seat. The district is currently held by Democratic Rep. Patrick Moore — notably, the only Democrat who voted in favor of impeachment when the House passed articles 73-14 on March 20. Three of the six cases cited in the petition are still pending in courts. Four involve disputes with the Fayette County Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Office. The Supreme Court’s majority noted that Goodman was effectively barred from defending her conduct in still-active cases, since Kentucky judges are prohibited from making public statements that could affect the outcome of pending litigation — a due process problem the court identified as one of several fatal flaws in the House’s case. The petition also alleged that Goodman demonstrated bias, in part by noting racial disparities in charging decisions in her courtroom — including a case in which she found a pattern of disparity in which white defendants were charged with lesser offenses and given more favorable plea offers than defendants of color. The petition characterized those observations as evidence of bias in favor of Black defendants. What the Supreme Court actually said The 5-1 majority opinion identified multiple independent grounds to void the impeachment, any one of which would have been sufficient on its own. First, the petition was facially invalid because it was never verified by a sworn affidavit, as required by Kentucky statute. Second, none of the allegations rose to the level of an impeachable offense — disagreements over a judge’s rulings, including those overturned on appeal, do not constitute “misdemeanors in office” under the Kentucky Constitution. Third, the House’s process denied Goodman due process. And fourth, a constitutionally established body — the Judicial Conduct Commission — already exists to handle precisely these kinds of allegations, and the court’s opinion revealed that the JCC is currently conducting proceedings to consider whether Goodman’s conduct warrants action. “Crucially, 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,” Lambert wrote. Justice Kelly Thompson wrote in a concurrence that allowing the impeachment to proceed “would be allowing the legislature to fully control the judiciary,” and that Kentucky has treated impeachment as a narrow remedy against egregious misconduct — not a tool for policy disagreements — for more than two centuries. He noted that the JCC “works vigorously to address complaints against judges” and that allowing this impeachment to go unchecked would upset the constitutional balance among branches of government. Justice Shea Nickell was the lone dissenter, arguing the high court lacked authority to intercede in the legislature’s impeachment power at all. A parallel process already underway One largely overlooked detail in the Supreme Court’s ruling: the Judicial Conduct Commission was already reviewing Goodman before the court issued its opinion. The majority disclosed this — though the commission had not previously confirmed it publicly when the House impeachment committee asked. The JCC is the only body the Kentucky Constitution explicitly authorizes to take disciplinary action against sitting judges. It is composed of six voting members including judges and attorneys, operates under Supreme Court rules, and conducts its investigations confidentially. Possible sanctions range from a private reprimand to removal from office. Importantly, if the JCC files formal charges against a judge, those charges become public — meaning any serious finding against Goodman would eventually surface through the commission’s own process. The Supreme Court’s opinion makes clear that the JCC — not the legislature — is the constitutionally correct venue for the concerns Timoney raised. That quiet parallel process may ultimately determine Goodman’s fate, regardless of what happens in the Senate Thursday. What defiance would mean Legal scholars and constitutional experts contacted by other outlets have offered little precedent to draw from. The Kentucky Supreme Court’s order is unambiguous: it enjoined the legislature from taking further action. But the court has no enforcement mechanism of its own — no army, no budget authority. Its power derives from the other branches’ historical willingness to comply. At least one member of the Senate Impeachment Committee has said she expects the chamber to comply. Sen. Cassie Chambers Armstrong, D-Louisville, a law professor at the University of Louisville, said the committee may need to convene once for the procedural purpose of formally dismissing the articles. “If they say that us considering articles of impeachment would be unconstitutional, my expectation is that we would comply with that order,” she said. The Republican supermajority has not said that. Stivers’s statement instead emphasized his belief that “concerns about judicial conduct can be raised and addressed without fear of retaliation” — framing continued proceedings as a matter of accountability rather than defiance. Goodman’s attorneys, meanwhile, have called on the Senate to dismiss the articles outright. “The strength of our democratic institutions depends on each branch honoring the boundaries the Kentucky Constitution has established,” attorneys Robert McBride, Mitchel Denham and Katherine Yunker said in a statement April 8. “This ruling ensures the balance of power among the three branches of government enshrined in the Kentucky Constitution remains intact.” The reaction from Lexington’s legal community has been sharp. Lexington attorney Abe Mashni wrote on Facebook the day of the House vote that the impeachment “should concern everyone who believes in separation of powers in Kentucky.” Russ Baldani, another Lexington attorney, called it “a horrendous precedent” and said the attempt to remove Goodman “has been denounced by our governor, a former attorney general, a slew of retired judges who have spoken out on social media, and basically anyone who gives a damn about the separation of powers and the right of voters to choose their elected officials.” Daniel E. Whitley Sr. was more blunt: “The attempt to impeach Judge Goodman is illegal.” A political origin that has not gone unnoticed The impeachment of a Lexington judge, initiated by a Lexington Republican seeking to reclaim his Lexington legislative seat, and built around rulings from Lexington courts, has received relatively little scrutiny as a local political story. Timoney was ousted from House District 45 in a 2024 GOP primary. He is running again this year. The seat is now held by Moore, whose vote for impeachment stood out in a chamber where the measure otherwise broke almost entirely along party lines. In a brief interview after filing the petition, Timoney largely declined to discuss what made Goodman’s rulings impeachable or whether the filing was politically motivated, directing questions to the petition itself and a Facebook post. Goodman, reached by reporters shortly after the petition was filed, said she had not been aware of it and did not know who Timoney was. She expressed little surprise that it had come. “I think it was only a matter of time, I guess,” she said. She has said nothing publicly since the Supreme Court ruled in her favor. The Senate Impeachment Committee is scheduled to convene Thursday, April 16, at the Kentucky Capitol in Frankfort. The legislative session itself ends the day before, on April 15. The post Kentucky Senate signals it will defy Supreme Court, proceed with Lexington judge’s impeachment trial Thursday appeared first on The Lexington Times. ...read more read less