LEXINGTON, Ky. — Gov. Andy Beshear said legislative impeachment proceedings, like the process currently under way for a Fayette Circuit judge, could have a “chilling effect” on Kentucky’s judiciary.

The Democratic governor, among others, has said impeachment may not be the proper route to determine if Fayette County Circuit Judge Julie Muth Goodman made improper rulings from the bench.

At a Thursday press conference, Beshear said it could set a precedent for “potentially dozens” of impeachment petitions to be filed in the future.

Killian Timoney, a former Republican lawmaker seeking to win back his Lexington-area House seat this year, filed the petition against Goodman in January, arguing she had abused her office.

“It opens up creation of a precedent where you would impeach a judge from disagreements with rulings,” Beshear said when asked about the proceedings. “When it hasn’t gone through the Judicial Conduct Commission, when you haven’t had other judges and groups weigh in on it, I think can create a chilling effect, and that you could see more of these being filed by parties that didn’t get a ruling they wanted.”

His comments come the day after a special House committee announced it would proceed with articles of impeachment against Goodman, who has served as a Lexington judge for 18 years.

The articles of impeachment said Goodman defied binding precedents and statutes enacted by the General Assembly, and interfered with the rights and powers of judicial bodies.

Beshear says concerns should be heard by Judicial Conduct Commission

While unaware of the specific allegations against Goodman, Beshear said concerns about her courtroom decorum and rulings could be better suited for entities other than an impeachment committee.

He said the concerns could have been heard before the state’s Judicial Conduct Commission, which is the only authorized body allowed by the Kentucky Constitution to take action against a sitting judge.

Operating under Supreme Court of Kentucky rules, the commission investigates complaints of judicial misconduct or wrongdoing and can hold hearings regarding the allegations. If a judge is found to have engaged in misconduct, the JCC can issue discipline, which include admonition, reprimand, suspension or removal from office.

Goodman has only had one complaint about her submitted to the conduct commission, which found it to be unsubstantiated. She has never been sanctioned by the body, she testified.

Fayette Commonwealth’s Attorney, Kim Baird, said she almost submitted a complaint to the JCC regarding Goodman, but did not do so because of “timing.” When the opportunity arose to testify before the impeachment committee, Baird agreed.

Beshear isn’t the only person to question why complaints about Goodman’s conduct did not go before the JCC.

Goodman and her attorneys, Robert McBride and Mitchel Denham, wrote in a court filing that the impeachment proceedings violated her due process rights. They filed a request for an emergency order last week to stop the proceedings in Franklin Circuit Court.

Franklin Circuit Judge Phillip Shepherd denied her emergency request, but not without saying there were significant issues with the proceedings.

“The impeachment process is not intended to be a forum for disappointed litigants to air their every personal or professional grievance against a judge who has ruled against them. To the extent that the legislative impeachment process does not protect Judge Goodman from such attacks, it will invite judicial review,” Shepherd wrote in a March 13 order.

While Shepherd did not stop the Monday hearing, he said determining the legislature’s jurisdiction was of “the utmost importance.” Shepherd could weigh in on the proceedings any day.

“It appears there is no historical precedent for the impeachment of a Kentucky judge for conduct of the type alleged in this petition,” he said.

Case content too complicated for non-judicial committee

This issue is further complicated by the fact that Goodman could not testify about five of the six cases before the committee.

As a sitting judge, she is barred from publicly commenting on ongoing cases, according to the judicial code of conduct.

This was evident during committee hearings when some non-attorney members of the committee, which is comprised of state lawmakers, did not seem to understand legal precedent or criminal legal proceedings.

This, impeachment opponents argue, is another reason why Goodman’s case should have been heard by the JCC instead.

James Morris, an attorney for a defendant whose case is mentioned in Goodman’s petition, said the way it was discussed at her hearing inaccurately represented his client’s case.

“If the Legislature is going to start ignoring the differences between the written rulings, and rely on, instead, upon snippets from comments made during hearings, or between counsel in the heat of hours-long hearings, this Committee will be bogged down in minutia when such commentary does not even reflect the actual final ruling of the Court,” Morris wrote in a letter to the committee.

Morris was present at Goodman’s Monday hearing and submitted an affidavit about his case. However, the committee did not discuss it.

With articles of impeachment issued against her, the House of Representatives will vote whether to send the proceedings to the Senate, where Goodman would face a trial. If convicted, she would be removed from office.

©2026 Lexington Herald-Leader. Visit at kentucky.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.