FRANKFORT, Ky., March 11, 2025 – The Supreme Court of Kentucky will hear oral arguments Wednesday and Thursday in Frankfort. Proceedings are open to the public and will take place in the historic Supreme Court Courtroom on the second floor of the Capitol.
The public may observe in person or via livestream. Stream arguments live or watch later at ket.org/supremecourt.
The Supreme Court is the state court of last resort and the final interpreter of Kentucky law. Seven justices sit on the Supreme Court and all seven justices rule on appeals that come before the court. The justices are elected from seven appellate districts and serve eight-year terms. A chief justice, chosen for a four-year term by fellow justices, is the administrative head of the state’s court system and is responsible for its operation. The Supreme Court may order a ruling or opinion to be published, which means that the ruling becomes the case law governing all similar cases in the future in Kentucky.
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 12, 2025
10 a.m. EDT
PROFESSIONAL HOME HEALTH CARE V. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY CABINET FOR HEALTH AND FAMILY SERVICES, ET AL. (2023-SC-0226-DG)
View attorneys and links to briefs at https://kcoj.info/SCMarch2025.
Administrative Law. Medicaid. Home and Community Based Waiver. Safety Net Provider. 907 KAR 1:170. Issues include whether the Cabinet overpaid PHHC, a safety net provider, for case management services when: (1) the HCBW regulation includes case management services in the list of reimbursable services; (2) the safety net regulation does not include case management services in the list of services eligible for enhanced reimbursement; (3) a Cabinet employee incorrectly informed PHHC that case management services were covered by the safety net regulation; and (4) the Cabinet paid PHHC over $1 million in enhanced reimbursements for case management services.
Discretionary Review Granted: August 16, 2023
Trial Court(s): Franklin Circuit Court
Presiding Judge(s): Hon. Thomas Wingate
11 a.m. EDT
T-MOBILE SOUTH LLC (D/B/A T-MOBILE USA), SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO POWERTEL MEMPHIS, INC. V. KENTUCKY COMMERCIAL MOBILE RADIO SERVICE EMERGENCY TELECOMMUNICATIONS BOARD (N/K/A KENTUCKY 911 SERVICES BOARD) (2023-SC-0245-DG)
View attorneys and links to briefs at https://kcoj.info/SCMarch2025.
Government. Regulatory Fees. 911 Services. Prepaid Cell Phones. Common Law Refund. Issues include whether a prepaid cell phone provider is entitled to a common law refund of statutory 911 fees paid to the CMRS Board when: (1) the provider questioned the statute’s applicability to prepaid cellular services from the time it began offering those services in Kentucky; (2) the CMRS Board informed the provider that the 911-fee statute did apply to prepaid cellular services; (3) the provider paid 911 fees for two years, rather than filing a lawsuit to obtain a ruling regarding the statute’s applicability; (4) this Court held that the statute did not apply to prepaid cellular providers in Virgin Mobile, 448 S.W.3d 241 (Ky. 2014); and (5) the provider promptly requested a refund from the CMRS Board and properly paid 911 fees after the General Assembly amended the statute.
Discretionary Review Granted: October 18, 2023
Trial Court(s): Franklin Circuit Court
Presiding Judge(s): Hon. Phillip Shepherd
1:30 p.m. EDT
DAVID LEMASTER V. KENDRA STILTNER, ET AL. (2023-SC-0454-DG)
View attorneys and links to briefs at https://kcoj.info/SCMarch2025.
Family Law. Custody. Intervention. De Facto Custodian. KRS 403.270. Issues include whether the family court erred by denying the child’s custodian’s partner’s motion to intervene in the custody action between the custodian and the child’s biological mother when: (1) the partner’s motion to intervene was filed soon after the custodian died; and (2) the custody action had been pending for six years at the time of the partner’s motion. Additionally, whether the family court erred by ruling that the custodian’s partner was not a de facto custodian because he cared for the child alongside the custodian.
Conley, J., not sitting.
Discretionary Review Granted: March 6, 2024
Trial Court(s): Greenup Circuit Court
Presiding Judge(s): Hon. Jennifer Barker Neice
THURSDAY, MARCH 13, 2025
CONSOLIDATED FOR ORAL ARGUMENT WITH 2024-SC-0231-DG, 2024-SC-0240-DG AND 2024-SC-0243-DG
10 a.m. EDT
AMELIA LONG, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF A CLASS OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ET AL. V. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, ET AL. (2024-SC-0229-DGE) APPELLANT BRIEF (AMEILIA LONG, ET AL.)
AND
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE V. AMELIA LONG, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF A CLASS OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ET AL. (2024-SC-0230-DGE)
View attorneys and links to briefs at https://kcoj.info/SCMarch2025.
Class Action. Sovereign Immunity. Agency-Referred Debt Collection. KRS 131.130(12). KRS 45.111. Issues include: (1) ripeness and application of sovereign immunity claims for monetary relief flowing from a declaratory judgment; (2) whether sovereign immunity bars the non-declaratory relief claims; (3) the exercise of appellate jurisdiction over trial court’s immunity ruling; (4) the proper venue for this action; (5) whether the enactment of KRS 131.130(2) renders the class plaintiffs’ claims moot; (6) whether KRS 45.111 waivers immunity for wrongful collection claims; and (7) the constitutionality of the KRS Chapter 45 referral and collection scheme.
Goodwine, J., not sitting.
Discretionary Review Granted: September 18, 2024
Trial Court(s): Franklin Circuit Court
Presiding Judge(s): Hon. Thomas Wingate
CONSOLIDATED FOR ORAL ARGUMENT WITH 2024-SC-0229 AND 2024-SC-0230
10 a.m. EDT
KIMBERLY BENNETT, ET AL. V. KENTUCKY COMMUNITY & TECHNICAL COLLEGE SYSTEM, ET AL. (2024-SC-0231-DG)
AND
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE V. KIMBERLY BENNETT, ET AL. (2024-SC-0240-DG)
AND
KENTUCKY COMMUNITY & TECHNICAL COLLEGE SYSTEM, ET AL. V. SAYRE LAWRENCE, ET AL. (2024-SC-0243-DG)
View attorneys and links to briefs at https://kcoj.info/SCMarch2025.
Putative Class Action. Sovereign Immunity. Agency-Referred Debt Collection. KRS 418.055. Issues include: (1) ripeness and application of sovereign immunity to claims for monetary relief flowing from a declaratory judgment; (2) whether sovereign immunity bars the non-declaratory relief claims; (3) exhaustion of administrative remedies; (4) whether KRS 418.055 waives sovereign immunity; and (5) the constitutionality of the KRS Chapter 45 referral and collection scheme.
Goodwine, J., not sitting.
###