HR124 is a House resolution that adopts Articles of Impeachment against Julie Muth Goodman, a Circuit Judge for Kentucky’s 22nd Judicial Circuit in Fayette County. The resolution recites the constitutional basis for impeachment in Kentucky, describes the receipt and review of a citizen petition, and notes that the House Impeachment Committee gave Judge Goodman notice, received a written response, and held a hearing at which the judge, her attorneys, the local commonwealth’s attorney, and a victim’s surviving spouse testified.
The resolution concludes that the committee found the petition valid and that Judge Goodman committed “misdemeanors in office,” warranting impeachment and removal. The attached Articles of Impeachment are broad and allege abuse of judicial power, defiance of binding precedent, defiance of statutes and court rules, and interference with the roles of grand jurors, trial jurors, attorneys, and others in the judicial process. The resolution also directs the Speaker to appoint a prosecuting committee to present the articles to the Senate and transmit the full committee record.
In practical terms, the measure does not amend the Kentucky Revised Statutes, but it triggers the constitutional impeachment process for a sitting circuit judge. If adopted, it authorizes the House to formally prosecute the impeachment before the Senate and creates an official record supporting removal proceedings. The affected parties are Judge Goodman, the House and Senate, and indirectly litigants and court participants in the referenced Fayette Circuit Court cases.
The general sentiment reflected in the bill text and vote history is strongly adverse to Judge Goodman and supportive of moving forward with impeachment. The House adopted the resolution by a substantial margin, 73-14, indicating broad support for the committee’s recommendation. The tone of the resolution is formal and accusatory, emphasizing constitutional authority and the committee’s independent review.
The main point of contention is whether Judge Goodman’s conduct in the referenced cases rose to the level of impeachable misconduct. Supporters of the resolution rely on the committee’s findings, the citizen petition, and testimony presented at the hearing. Any opposition would likely center on judicial independence, the scope of a judge’s discretion, and whether the cited actions amount to “misdemeanors in office” under Kentucky’s impeachment standard.
HR124 activates Kentucky’s constitutional impeachment mechanism against a circuit judge and authorizes House-appointed prosecutors to present the articles to the Senate. It does not directly change statutory law, but it affects the administration of the judiciary, the status of Judge Goodman, and the impeachment procedures governing civil officers under Sections 66, 68, and 109 of the Kentucky Constitution.
The bill appears to have been received favorably by the House majority, as shown by the 73-14 vote to adopt the resolution. The resolution itself is highly critical of Judge Goodman and frames impeachment as the appropriate remedy after committee review and hearing testimony. The vote margin suggests substantial bipartisan or cross-faction support, though a meaningful minority opposed the measure.
The central controversy is whether Judge Goodman’s actions in the cited criminal and civil cases constituted impeachable misconduct or were within the bounds of judicial discretion. Supporters point to alleged abuse of authority, disregard of precedent, statutes, and court rules, and interference with court participants. Opponents are likely to argue that the allegations reflect disagreements over judicial rulings rather than misconduct warranting removal, raising concerns about separation of powers and judicial independence.