HON. DONNA GREENWELL DUTTON v. JIMMY SHAFFER, in her official capacity as the Executive Secretary of the Judicial Conduct Commission; HON. R. MICHAEL SULLIVAN, HON. JEFF S. TAYLOR, HON. ELIZABETH CHANDLER, HON. EDDY COLEMAN, HON. JOE E. ELLIS, and HON. JANET LIVELY MCCAULEY, in their official capacities as Members of the Judicial Conduct Commission, Defendants-Appellees - Articles

All Content


Posted by: Azya Thornton on Apr 1, 2026

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: Christopher Wiest, CHRIS WIEST, ATTY AT LAW, PLLC, Covington, Kentucky, for Judge Dutton.

Attorneys 2: ARGUED: Olivia F. Amlung, ADAMS LAW, PLLC, Covington, Kentucky, for the Secretary and Members of the Judicial Conduct Commission.

Attorneys 3: ON BRIEF: Christopher Wiest, CHRIS WIEST, ATTY AT LAW, PLLC, Covington, Kentucky, Thomas B. Bruns, BRUNS CONNELL VOLLMAR & ARMSTRONG, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Judge Dutton. Olivia F. Amlung, Jeffrey C. Mando, ADAMS LAW, PLLC, Covington, Kentucky, for the Secretary and Members of the Judicial Conduct Commission.

Judge(s): GIBBONS, WHITE, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky at Frankfort

JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge. This appeal arises from Donna Greenwell Dutton’s lawsuit against the Kentucky Judicial Conduct Commission (JCC) for attempting to enforce state judicial ethics rules against her. The JCC suspected that Dutton’s statement to a newspaper during her campaign for reelection ran afoul of three rules in the Kentucky Code of Judicial Conduct (KCJC). After the JCC sent Dutton a Proposed Agreed Order to discipline her, Dutton sued Jimmy Shaffer, in her official capacity as Executive Secretary of the JCC, as well as R. Michael Sullivan, Jeff S. Taylor, Elizabeth Chandler, Eddy Coleman, Joe E. Ellis, and Janet Lively McCauley, in their official capacities as Members of the JCC. Alleging that the JCC’s attempt to enforce the KCJC violated her free speech rights under the First Amendment, Dutton pled one facial challenge and one as-applied challenge to each of the three rules. The district court granted summary judgment and ordered permanent injunctive relief in favor of Dutton based on her as-applied challenge to Rule 4.1(A)(11), which prohibits judicial candidates from making false statements of material fact. Yet the court rejected Dutton’s as-applied challenges to Rule 1.2, which requires judicial candidates to uphold judicial independence, integrity, and impartiality, and Rule 2.4(B), which prohibits them from allowing personal relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgment. The court also denied Dutton relief based on her facial challenges to all three Rules. We affirm in part and reverse in part the district court’s order. While the district court properly granted Dutton’s motion for summary judgment and a permanent injunction based on her as-applied challenge to Rule 4.1(A)(11), it erred in denying her motion based on her as- applied challenges to Rules 1.2 and 2.4(B).

Attachments: