The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued a ruling Monday in *Elizabeth Niblock v. University of Kentucky*, a class action case that has been working its way through federal courts since 2019. The decision, which the court recommended for publication, indicates the ruling may have precedential value for future cases.
The case involves Elizabeth Niblock and Ala Hassan as class representatives bringing claims individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons against the University of Kentucky. The appeal arose from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky at Lexington, where District Judge Karen K. Caldwell presided over the original proceedings.
The Sixth Circuit panel consisted of Chief Judge Jeffrey Sutton, Judge David Murphy, and Judge Bernice Bloomekatz. Chief Judge Sutton delivered the opinion of the court, with Judges Murphy and Bloomekatz concurring. Additionally, Chief Judge Sutton and Judge Murphy filed a separate concurring opinion spanning pages 15 through 22 of the decision.
The case was argued before the appeals court on Dec. 10, 2025, with the decision filed on Jan. 20, 2026. This timeline reflects the typical appellate process, where cases are argued months before decisions are issued as judges deliberate and draft opinions.
Representing the appellants were attorneys from multiple firms, including Lori Bullock from Bullock Law PLLC in Des Moines, Iowa, who argued the case before the panel. Additional counsel for the plaintiffs included Joshua I. Hammack from Bailey & Glasser LLP in Washington, D.C., and Jill Zwagerman from Newkirk Zwagerman PLC in Des Moines.
The University of Kentucky was represented by Bryan H. Beauman from Sturgill, Turner, Barker & Moloney PLLC in Lexington, Kentucky, who presented oral arguments for the defendant. Additional university counsel included Carmine G. Iaccarino from the same firm and William E. Thro from the University of Kentucky's legal office.
The case also drew interest from outside parties, with amicus curiae briefs filed by organizations represented by Caleb R. Trotter from the Pacific Legal Foundation in Sacramento, California. The presence of amicus briefs suggests the case addresses legal issues of broader significance beyond the immediate parties.
The court's designation of the opinion as "recommended for publication" under Sixth Circuit Internal Operating Procedure 32.1(b) indicates the judges believe the decision contains legal analysis that should be preserved as precedent. Published opinions carry greater weight in future litigation and signal that the court views its ruling as having importance beyond resolving the specific dispute between these parties.
The case number 24-6060 indicates the appeal was filed in 2024, following what was likely an adverse ruling for the plaintiffs in the district court. The original district court case, numbered 5:19-cv-00394, shows the litigation began in 2019, meaning the dispute has been ongoing for approximately seven years through both trial and appellate levels.
Class action cases like *Niblock* allow individuals to bring claims on behalf of larger groups of people who suffered similar harm. The inclusion of multiple class representatives suggests the plaintiffs sought to represent a substantial number of people with similar claims against the university.
The Eastern District of Kentucky, where the case originated, has jurisdiction over federal cases arising in the eastern portion of the state, including Lexington where the University of Kentucky's main campus is located. District Judge Caldwell, who oversaw the initial proceedings, is an experienced federal judge who has handled numerous complex cases during her tenure.
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals covers federal appeals from district courts in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee. The court sits in Cincinnati and regularly handles appeals involving universities, employment law, constitutional claims, and other matters affecting public institutions.
While the specific legal claims and outcome of the *Niblock* case are not detailed in the available court filing information, the multi-year litigation timeline and class action format suggest the case involved substantial legal issues affecting multiple individuals' relationships with the university.
The presence of multiple concurring opinions suggests the judges agreed on the outcome but potentially had different reasoning or wanted to address additional legal points. Concurring opinions often provide additional guidance for lower courts and future litigants on how the law should be interpreted and applied.
The decision represents the conclusion of the appellate process for this phase of the litigation, though parties retain the option to petition the Supreme Court for review through a writ of certiorari, though such petitions are rarely granted.