you are reading state court report Biweekly newsletter. Subscribe to get it in your inbox.
The Kentucky Supreme Court ruled this month that the state Legislature does not have the power to impeach judges over disagreement with their rulings. This was an assertion of judicial power at a time when the independence of courts is under attack, including in Kentucky. The 5-1 decision, authored by Chief Justice Debra Lambert, blocked impeachment proceedings against state trial judge Julie Moose Goodman. There has already been pushback from Congress.
The Kentucky ruling comes amid 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, parallel to the impeachment effort against Goodman, the state House of Representatives also considered (but did not advance) an impeachment petition alleging a conflict of interest against state Supreme Court Justice Pamela Goodwine. Goodwine called the claims baseless. (Goodwine declined to participate in the Goodman case.)
As for Goodman, the impeachment targets her in six cases that were overturned on appeal, many of them related to criminal trials and judgments in which Goodman took the stand. The state Senate is scheduled to hold an impeachment trial against Goodman in April, which could have resulted in his removal from office.
In a ruling, the Kentucky Supreme Court declared the articles of impeachment against Goodman invalid and blocked further proceedings against her. Although the court noted procedural flaws in the impeachment complaint and proposed trial, its most important findings related to the Kentucky Constitution’s definition of “misdemeanor while in office,” the basis for impeachment.
The court concluded that “an individual’s disagreement with a judge’s decision, or even the fact that a judge’s decision was deemed an abuse of discretion by the Court of Appeals (no matter how egregious) does not and cannot constitute a misdemeanor in office.” Rather, the state constitution leaves it to the judiciary to address the types of allegations raised in Goodman’s impeachment case through an appellate or judicial disciplinary process. This structure helps maintain judicial independence and allows judges to fulfill their constitutional duties, the court explained.
The court also rejected the argument that the scope of Congress’s impeachment power is a “political question” beyond the scope of judicial review. The court explained that, based on the Kentucky Constitution’s strict separation of powers, the judicial branch has a duty to ensure that other branches do not violate the constitution. Leaving Congress with “full and unlimited power” regarding impeachment is “not equivalent,” the court argued. “That would be arrogant.”
Immediately after this decision, it appeared that Kentucky was heading toward a constitutional crisis. Senate leadership has issued vague statements suggesting Goodman’s impeachment trial may proceed despite the court’s order. But on April 15, the Senate agreed to let the case go to trial, at least for now.
But it appears the battle between Kentucky’s branches is far from over. Despite the Supreme Court’s order, Congress remains open to reconsidering Goodman’s impeachment as allegations of judicial discipline violations against him proceed. The House of Representatives has now referred Judge Goodwine’s impeachment case to a committee of inquiry, raising the possibility that it will proceed against her in the 2027 Congress.
The House and Senate also issued an unusual public reprimand against Kelly Thompson, another judge who agreed in the Goodman case, for making “disrespectful statements.” Thompson noted in the agreement that allegations of improper impeachment proceedings could violate criminal prohibitions against threatening participants in legal proceedings and could subject lawyers involved in the effort to disciplinary action. Some members of Congress took that as a threat. Mr. Thompson appeared undeterred by the accusations, saying he was “honored” to assume the Senate president’s shoes.
The Kentucky Superior Court’s decision and Thompson’s concurrence are important reminders that courts have the tools to respond to attacks on judicial independence. But I think that ultimately public opinion will decide the fate, whether for or against continuing to target Kentucky judges. In my experience, when asked to think about judicial independence, most people understand the value of judicial independence in our constitutional system. The problem is, that’s rarely the case. The Kentucky General Assembly does not adjourn until 2027, creating a unique opportunity for Kentuckians to gain public education and engagement about the judiciary.
Alicia Bannon is the editor-in-chief State Court Report. She is also the director of justice programs at the Brennan Center for Justice.
Recommended quote: Alicia Bannon Kentucky High Court blocks judicial impeachmentSᴛᴀᴛᴇ Cᴏᴜʀᴛ Rᴇᴘᴏʀᴛ (April 23, 2026), https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/kentucky-high-court-blocks-judicial-impeachment
