The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has issued a published decision in *John Doe v. John Burlew*, a class action lawsuit that challenges actions by Kentucky county attorneys in their official capacities. The court's opinion, filed Jan. 26, 2026, addresses constitutional claims brought by a plaintiff proceeding under pseudonym against Daviess County Attorney John Burlew and all Kentucky county attorneys collectively.
The case originated in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky at Owensboro, where District Judge Gregory N. Stivers presided over the initial proceedings. The lawsuit was filed as case number 4:24-cv-00045 and involved constitutional challenges that prompted both parties to file cross-appeals with the Sixth Circuit.
Circuit Judge Murphy authored the opinion for a three-judge panel that included Circuit Judges Gibbons and White. The case was argued before the appeals court on April 30, 2025, nearly nine months before the decision was issued. The Sixth Circuit designated the opinion for publication pursuant to Internal Operating Procedure 32.1(b), indicating the court views the decision as having precedential value.
The plaintiff, proceeding under the pseudonym John Doe, filed the lawsuit on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, seeking to establish a class action against Kentucky's county attorneys. The defendant, John Burlew, serves as the Daviess County Attorney and was sued in his official capacity representing all county attorneys in Kentucky in their official roles.
Both parties were represented by experienced counsel during the appellate proceedings. The Kentucky Attorney General's office handled representation for Burlew, with attorneys John H. Heyburn and Matthew F. Kuhn appearing on the brief. Heyburn also argued the case before the appeals court. The plaintiff was represented by Guy Hamilton-Smith from the Law Office of Guy Hamilton-Smith in Washington, D.C., who both briefed and argued the case.
The appeals court's opinion begins with a notable observation about litigation strategy, stating that the case demonstrates the cost that litigants impose on themselves when pursuing only facial constitutional claims. Circuit Judge Murphy referenced the Supreme Court's decision in *Moody v. NetChoice, LLC* in making this point, suggesting the case involves First Amendment or other constitutional challenges that could have been brought as applied challenges rather than facial attacks on laws or policies.
Facial constitutional challenges attack laws or government actions as unconstitutional in all applications, while as-applied challenges focus on how specific laws affect particular plaintiffs in their individual circumstances. The distinction is significant because facial challenges typically face higher legal standards and can be more difficult to win.
The case involves cross-appeals, meaning both the plaintiff and defendant challenged different aspects of the district court's ruling. Cross-appeals often indicate that neither party was completely satisfied with the lower court's decision, with each side winning some issues while losing others.
Kentucky's county attorneys serve as the chief prosecutors for their respective counties and handle various legal matters on behalf of county governments. They are elected officials who typically serve four-year terms and have broad authority over criminal prosecutions and civil legal matters affecting their counties.
The fact that the plaintiff sued all Kentucky county attorneys collectively in their official capacities suggests the case involves a statewide policy or practice that affects multiple counties. Official capacity suits target government policies and practices rather than individual officials' personal conduct, and successful claims typically result in injunctive relief rather than monetary damages.
Class action lawsuits allow one or more plaintiffs to represent a larger group of people who have similar legal claims. For a class to be certified, courts must find that the claims are sufficiently similar and that class treatment is more efficient than individual lawsuits.
The Sixth Circuit's decision to recommend the case for publication indicates the court believes the legal principles addressed have broader application beyond this specific dispute. Published opinions carry precedential weight and guide future court decisions on similar legal questions.
The timing of the case, filed in 2024 and decided in early 2026, reflects the typical appellate process timeline. The nine-month gap between oral arguments and the decision suggests the court carefully considered complex legal issues before reaching its conclusion.
While the full scope of the constitutional claims and the court's holdings are not detailed in the available excerpts, the case appears to address significant questions about the authority and practices of Kentucky's county attorneys that could affect law enforcement and prosecution policies statewide.
The involvement of the Kentucky Attorney General's office in defending the case indicates the state views the legal questions as having broad implications for county-level law enforcement and prosecution practices. The decision may affect how county attorneys across Kentucky conduct their official duties and interact with the public they serve.
The case represents another example of federal courts addressing constitutional challenges to state and local government practices, particularly in the law enforcement context where civil rights and due process concerns frequently arise.