A RESOLUTION declaring that the Kentucky Supreme Court's opinion and order of April 6, 2026, is unconstitutional.
House Resolution 140 is a declaratory resolution asserting that the Kentucky Supreme Court’s April 6, 2026 opinion and order is unconstitutional, null, and void. The resolution is framed as a defense of the Kentucky House of Representatives’ exclusive constitutional authority over impeachment, stating that the General Assembly’s impeachment powers remain “inviolate” and cannot be limited by the courts. It specifically rejects the Court’s purported attempt to restrict impeachment standards or to enjoin legislative action in connection with the impeachment of Circuit Judge Julie Muth Goodman.
The resolution also reaffirms the validity of House Resolution 124 and the five Articles of Impeachment previously adopted against Judge Goodman. It declares that certain judicial conduct—such as abuse of office, defiance of binding precedent, defiance of statutes and court rules, and interference with the roles of grand jurors, trial jurors, attorneys, and others—constitutes a “misdemeanor in office” warranting impeachment and removal. In addition, the resolution states that the House alone has authority to tax costs, attorney’s fees, or other expenses related to impeachments, and bars such costs from being assessed in connection with impeachment matters considered during the 2026 Regular Session.
The bill’s impact is primarily constitutional and institutional rather than regulatory. It does not create a new statutory scheme, but instead attempts to define and defend the legislature’s impeachment authority under the Kentucky Constitution, while rejecting the Supreme Court’s contrary interpretation. If adopted, it would serve as an official statement of the House’s position that the judiciary cannot limit impeachment proceedings and that the Goodman impeachment remains valid. It also seeks to foreclose any future assessment of costs or fees tied to impeachment petitions or proceedings.
The general sentiment reflected in the text is strongly adversarial toward the Kentucky Supreme Court and strongly supportive of the House’s impeachment power. The resolution uses emphatic language to describe the Court’s opinion as unconstitutional and an encroachment on legislative authority. There is no evidence in the provided record of committee debate or recorded votes, so the available context suggests a one-sided, institutionally assertive posture rather than a negotiated or bipartisan measure.
The main point of contention is the separation of powers between the legislative and judicial branches, especially whether the Supreme Court can limit impeachment proceedings or review the House’s use of that power. A related dispute concerns the substantive standard for impeachable conduct by judges, with the resolution rejecting any narrow standard tied only to indictable crimes or extreme moral turpitude. The resolution also implicitly defends the specific impeachment of Judge Goodman, making that proceeding a central flashpoint in the broader constitutional conflict.
HR 140 would not amend the Kentucky Revised Statutes, but it would formally state the House’s constitutional interpretation that impeachment authority belongs exclusively to the General Assembly and cannot be restricted by the Kentucky Supreme Court. It also declares the April 6, 2026 Supreme Court opinion void and reaffirms the validity of the Goodman impeachment articles, while asserting House control over any costs or attorney’s fees associated with impeachment proceedings. The practical effect is to strengthen the House’s position in an interbranch dispute and to influence future impeachment proceedings and related litigation.
The sentiment around the resolution is highly supportive of legislative impeachment authority and sharply critical of the Kentucky Supreme Court. The bill’s language reflects a confrontational stance, portraying the Court as having overreached into powers reserved to the General Assembly. Because no committee transcript or vote record is provided, there is no evidence of mixed sentiment or formal opposition in the available materials, but the text itself clearly signals strong partisan or institutional alignment with the House’s position.
The central controversy is whether the Kentucky Supreme Court may limit or review the House’s impeachment power, with the resolution insisting that it may not. Another major point of contention is the proper legal standard for impeaching a judge: the resolution rejects a narrow standard based only on indictable crimes or extreme moral turpitude and instead endorses broader grounds such as abuse of office, defiance of precedent, and interference with court participants. The resolution also defends the impeachment of Judge Julie Muth Goodman, making her case a focal point of the dispute between the branches.