A RESOLUTION censuring Kentucky Supreme Court Justice Kelly Thompson for his intemperate remarks that threatened attorneys and legislators participating in pending impeachment proceedings with professional discipline and criminal prosecution, and directing a complaint to be filed against him with the Judicial Conduct Commission.
Summary
House Resolution 141 is a censure resolution directed at Kentucky Supreme Court Justice Kelly Thompson. The resolution states that Thompson’s concurring opinion in a Supreme Court decision involving a pending judicial impeachment proceeding contained intemperate remarks that threatened attorneys and legislators with professional discipline and criminal prosecution if they participated in impeachment-related activity. The House declares that those remarks were improper, reflected poorly on Thompson’s judgment, and raised questions about his fitness for office.
The resolution also criticizes the Kentucky Supreme Court’s April 6, 2026 opinion for allegedly exceeding the Court’s constitutional authority by intervening in a matter pending before the General Assembly. It asserts that the Court improperly attempted to limit the legislature’s impeachment power and that Thompson’s separate concurrence threatened constitutional rights, including the rights to counsel, free speech, due process, and equal protection. As a remedy, the resolution directs the Director of the Legislative Research Commission to file a complaint against Thompson with the Judicial Conduct Commission and attach the resolution to that complaint.
Impact
If adopted, the resolution does not amend the Kentucky Revised Statutes or create new statutory law, but it formally expresses the House’s condemnation of a sitting Supreme Court justice and triggers a complaint process before the Judicial Conduct Commission. Its practical effect is to escalate a separation-of-powers dispute tied to judicial impeachment proceedings and to place Thompson’s conduct under formal ethics review, potentially leading to discipline if the Commission finds good cause.
Sentiment
The House vote indicates strong support for the resolution, with adoption passing 77-15. The language of the resolution is sharply critical of Justice Thompson and the Supreme Court majority, reflecting a confrontational posture from the House toward perceived judicial interference in legislative impeachment authority. The available voting history suggests the measure was broadly supported by House members, though a notable minority opposed it.
Contention
The main point of contention is whether the Kentucky Supreme Court had authority to intervene in a pending impeachment matter and whether Justice Thompson’s concurrence improperly chilled participation by attorneys and legislators through references to discipline and criminal prosecution. Supporters of the resolution view Thompson’s comments as an overreach and a threat to constitutional rights, while opponents likely viewed the resolution as an escalation of a separation-of-powers conflict and a political response to the Court’s decision. The dispute centers on impeachment power, judicial review, attorney discipline, and the limits of judicial commentary in politically sensitive proceedings.