Herald-Leader sues Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear for access to his schedule
The Lexington Herald-Leader has filed a lawsuit against Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear in an effort to access his official calendar.
The suit, filed Jan. 5 in Franklin Circuit Court, seeks to overturn a 1995 appellate court ruling that classifies the governor’s schedule as a “preliminary” document, exempt from disclosure under the Kentucky Open Records Act.
The ruling, Courier-Journal v. Jones, has also been applied to shield the calendars of other executive branch officials in Kentucky, down to the county and local level.
“Kentuckians deserve to know what their governor and other executive branch officials are doing while they’re in office,” said Alex Valentine, interim executive editor at the Herald-Leader. “Hiding officials’ daily agendas behind flimsy claims that the records are preliminary, even for days that have already passed, is not a good faith effort to abide by the public’s right to know.”
Scottie Ellis, communications director for the governor’s office, said the administration had not yet been served as of 12:30 p.m. Monday.
“The law is clear: The Governor’s schedule has been exempted from Open Records,” Ellis said. “As Attorney General, Gov. Beshear upheld the same standard for then-Gov. Matt Bevin. Gov. Beshear regularly publishes advisories in advance about where he is going to be and holds a weekly press conference where journalists are invited to attend and ask questions.”
The case stems from a Nov. 12 open records request filed by a Herald-Leader journalist for “any documents reflecting the schedules of” Beshear, Lt. Gov. Jacqueline Coleman and Beshear senior adviser Rocky Adkins for May 11 through Nov. 11, 2025.
A week later, Beshear’s office denied the request in its entirety, citing the Jones ruling.
Michael Abate, a First Amendment attorney representing the Herald-Leader in its suit, said the case is important for the sake of government transparency.
“The public absolutely has a right to know, not just what their governor, but what their leaders, elected and appointed leaders, are doing in their name,” Abate said. “Who they’re meeting with. What their schedules are like. How they’re filling their time.
“Those are basic principles of democracy.”
The lawsuit comes as Beshear’s star in the national Democratic Party is on the rise. He’s chair of the Democratic Governors Association and is widely seen as a potential presidential candidate in 2028 — an opportunity he has not denied interest in.
Since winning a second term in the Governor’s Mansion in 2023, Beshear has crisscrossed the nation, appearing at Democratic events, on late-night TV and at various party fundraisers. His pit stops have included traditional early primary states New Hampshire and South Carolina, as well as Nebraska, Missouri, Michigan, Georgia, Iowa, Nevada and more.
The governor has also traveled internationally in his second term, including an appearance at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, in January 2025; Ireland, the United Kingdom and France in October 2025; and Japan and South Korea in July 2024.
Beshear’s frequent travel raises the question of who’s leading and taking high-level meetings in his absence, Valentine said.
“This fight is especially salient right now. Thanks in no small part to his travel schedule, there is widespread speculation that Kentucky’s governor will seek higher office in the coming years,” Valentine said. “The public deserves to know where the governor is and who’s running the commonwealth when he’s away.”
Abate said the case is bigger than just Beshear.
“Right now, there is a legitimate question around wanting to understand how the particular folks at issue in this request are conducting the state’s business (and) who’s involved,” Abate said. “As we’ve seen more and more examples of the governor traveling around the country, it raises questions around how he and others are spending their time.
“But this case is about more than this governor and this governor’s office; it’s about making the law clear that the public has a right to know what any official is up to in their name.”
What does the Herald-Leader lawsuit say?
The Herald-Leader’s filing argues “historical records documenting completed meetings, many of them publicly announced” cannot be considered “preliminary” drafts.
“Officials now routinely publicize their meetings in real-time, undermining any claim that schedules represent confidential preliminary planning,” the complaint argues.
In the vast majority of states, at least some information concerning executive schedules is available, Abate said. So is the president’s. This, the lawsuit says, demonstrates “that transparency in executive scheduling is not only feasible but essential to democratic accountability.”
Additionally, the suit argues the Jones case “misapplied the ‘preliminary draft’ exemption to cover official, final government meetings, and has since been extended by the Office of the Attorney General to shield even routine meetings by mid- and low-level state, county, and local government officials from disclosure.
“That regime deprives the public of the transparency it is entitled to under the Open Records Act,” it says.
The lawsuit continues: “The Governor’s Office’s categorical denial continues the dangerous precedent of allowing executive officials to selectively disclose favorable meetings while shielding the complete record of their activities from public scrutiny, undermining the transparency the Open Records Act was designed to ensure.”
The lawsuit asks the court to find that schedules reflecting government officials’ meetings and activities are not exempt from public records laws and to order the governor’s administration to release the unredacted calendars requested by the newspaper.
“The public has a right to know — now — who is running the state as its current governor appears to be shifting into a national campaign mode,” the Herald-Leader said in the lawsuit.
The case was assigned to Franklin Circuit Judge Thomas Wingate.
What does Courier Journal v. Jones say?
The Jones case began when the Courier-Journal requested then-Gov. Brereton Jones’ appointment ledgers, including from December 1991 to December 1992, which the governor refused to release. After losing in Franklin Circuit Court, the Louisville newspaper appealed, where it ultimately lost in a 2-1 decision.
“We view the Governor’s appointment schedule as nothing more than a draft of what may or may never take place; a notation for inter or intra office use, so the daily affairs of the chief executive can be conducted with some semblance of orderliness; and all of which should be free from media interference,” the ruling stated.
Because the case was not appealed further, the Kentucky Supreme Court has not had an opportunity to consider this issue.
Abate said the law has changed significantly in the last 30 years since the Jones ruling.
“Kentucky’s law is a bit of an outlier in this respect, and it treats even the completed schedule as a preliminary record for eternity,” Abate said. “Even when the governor has made public appearances, any records related to that under the Jones case are considered preliminary, which makes little, if any, logical sense.”
Abate said the case law is out of step with the purpose and text of the Kentucky Open Records Act — and even the California court decision it is heavily based on. The California governor’s calendar has been considered a public record for more than 20 years now, following a 2004 change to California’s constitution.
“The rationale as used by the court many decades ago was really more of a policy determination that the governor needs some level of secrecy to be able to carry out the job efficiently and functionally,” Abate said. “. . . In the world of social media politicians, the activities of our leaders are broadcast all over the world on a daily basis.
“To suggest that they can’t tell you who they’re meeting with or who they’re talking to without destroying their ability to govern is, I think, just fiction. It doesn’t match the way the world works today.”
This story was originally published January 5, 2026 at 10:50 AM.
