On Thursday, August 22, 2024, WDRB reported that the Kentucky Supreme Court issued a ruling limiting the authority of the state’s Judicial Conduct Commission.

The case involved Circuit Judge Jamie Jameson of Marshall and Calloway counties. In November 2022, the Judicial Conduct Commission found Judge Jameson guilty of seven counts of misconduct and permanently barred him from serving as a judge. However, the Supreme Court ruled that while removal from office was justified in this case, the commission does not have the power to remove a judge permanently.

Judge Jameson had attracted attention in 2018 when he illegally sealed court records related to the Marshall County High School shooting. Among the misconduct charges he was found guilty of by the commission were pressuring a lawyer practicing in his court to support his reelection campaign, improperly holding people in contempt of court, retaliating against a deputy sheriff who leaked a video of the judge without proper clothing in the courthouse, and attempting to block the commission’s investigation.

In its ruling, the Kentucky Supreme Court said that only the state legislature has the authority to permanently impeach an elected official through the impeachment process. This was the first time the highest court in Kentucky addressed this specific issue. The majority determined that the Judicial Conduct Commission is limited to temporary or interim suspensions and cannot permanently bar someone from serving as a judge.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Angela Bisig argued that removing Judge Jameson just two months before his term ended could allow him to run for office again if he was not permanently barred. She expressed concerns that limiting the commission’s removal authority could undermine public confidence in the judiciary and compromise the commission’s role in maintaining an ethical system.

The ruling clarified the Judicial Conduct Commission’s powers but left Judge Jameson’s future eligibility for office unresolved since he was actively campaigning for reelection at the time of his removal last year. His attorney declined to provide a comment on the Supreme Court’s decision.

 

 

Source: WDRB