Joseph Fischer v. Karen Thomas

── Joseph Fischer v. Karen Thomas ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Date: May 12, 2026 Category: General RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 26a0141p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ┐ JOSEPH FISCHER; FISCHER FOR SUPREME COURT │ COMMITTEE; ROBERT A. WINTER, JR., │ Plaintiffs-Appellees/Cross-Appellants, > Nos. 25-5385/5400 │ v. │ │ HON. KAREN A. THOMAS, HON. R. MICHAEL SULLIVAN, │ HON. EDDY COLEMAN, HON. JEFF S. TAYLOR, HON. JOE E. │ ELLIS, and HON. JANET LIVELY MCCAULEY, as Members, │ Judicial Conduct Commission; JIMMY SHAFFER, as │ Executive Secretary, Judicial Conduct Commission, │ Defendants-Appellants/Cross-Appellees. │ ┘ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky at Covington. No. 2:22-cv-00121—Karen K. Caldwell, District Judge. Argued: March 18, 2026 Decided and Filed: May 12, 2026 Before: GRIFFIN, THAPAR, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. _________________ COUNSEL ARGUED: Casmir M. Thornberry, ADAMS LAW, PLLC, Covington, Kentucky, for the Commission Members. Christopher Wiest, CHRIS WIEST, ATTY AT LAW, PLLC, Covington, Kentucky, for the Candidates. ON BRIEF: Casmir M. Thornberry, Olivia F. Amlung, Jeffrey C. Mando, ADAMS LAW, PLLC, Covington, Kentucky, for the Commission Members. Christopher Wiest, CHRIS WIEST, ATTY AT LAW, PLLC, Covington, Kentucky, Thomas B. Bruns, BRUNS CONNELL VOLLMAR & ARMSTRONG, Cincinnati, Ohio, for the Candidates. Bethany A. Breetz, STITES & HARBISON, PLLC, Louisville, Kentucky, for Amicus Curiae. THAPAR, J., delivered the opinion of the court in which MURPHY, J., concurred and GRIFFIN, J., concurred in part. GRIFFIN, J. (pp. 17–21), delivered a separate opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.  Nos. 25-5385/5400 Fischer, et al. v. Thomas, et al. Page 2 _________________ OPINION _________________ THAPAR, Circuit Judge. Elections have consequences. And when a state decides to elect its judges, the state must comply with the First Amendment. In this case, two former candidates for Kentucky judicial office argue that the state violated the First Amendment when it threatened to sanction them for their campaign speech during a 2022 election. They’re right. So we agree the candidates are entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief. I. The campaign. In 2022, Joseph Fischer and Robert Winter campaigned to become Kentucky state judges. During the campaign, both candidates took steps to inform voters of their ideological views. Fischer posted campaign signs identifying him as “the Conservative Republican” and including an outline of an elephant’s head. R. 13-2, Pg. ID 120. Winter similarly referred to himself as a “conservative” and “a Republican.” R. 13-4, Pg. ID 125. Both candidates also received (but neither sought nor used) endorsements from local Republican Party committees and made appearances at Republican Party events. And they used endorsement