FRANKFORT, Ky. — The Kentucky Supreme Court has denied an emergency request by the London City Council to remove Mayor Randall Weddle from office and reinstate an interim mayor, ruling that the council failed to meet the legal standards required for interlocutory relief.
In an opinion entered Dec. 18, 2025, the high court affirmed a Court of Appeals decision that left Weddle in office while the underlying legal dispute over his removal continues. The case now returns to the Court of Appeals for further consideration of the merits of the council’s appeal
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING INTER…
.
Weddle was elected mayor of London in 2022, receiving more than 56 percent of the vote. Relations between the mayor and city council later deteriorated, culminating in a Sept. 5, 2025, vote by the council to remove him from office and appoint Tracie Handley as interim mayor.
The council cited three primary grounds for removal:
Allegations that Weddle signed a $5 million mortgage on behalf of the city using a public park as collateral,
Claims that he failed to publish notice of a city ordinance within the required time frame, and
Alleged violations of the law and the city’s ethics code related to an unfilled vacancy on the city’s ethics board
Weddle appealed the council’s action to Laurel Circuit Court under Kentucky law. In late September, the circuit court ruled that the council had not presented sufficient grounds for removal and ordered Weddle immediately reinstated as mayor.
After losing in circuit court, the city council appealed and sought emergency, or interlocutory, relief from the Court of Appeals, arguing that allowing Weddle to remain in office would cause irreparable harm. The Court of Appeals rejected that request, concluding that the circuit court’s ruling was a decision on the merits — not an injunction — and therefore did not qualify for emergency appellate relief.
The council then asked the Kentucky Supreme Court to intervene.
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court agreed with the lower courts. The justices ruled that the circuit court did not issue an injunction but instead ruled directly on the merits of Weddle’s statutory appeal. Because of that, the council could not use the appellate rules governing injunctions to seek emergency relief.
The court also rejected arguments that the city would suffer irreparable harm if Weddle remained in office during the appeal. The opinion emphasized that Weddle was duly elected by London voters and is therefore the lawful incumbent while the case is pending.
“The status quo,” the court wrote, is that Weddle serves as mayor, and courts generally avoid using injunctions to decide disputes over who holds public office when an adequate legal remedy exists
The Supreme Court also addressed claims that the case should be dismissed due to improper service of process. The council argued that service was defective because the papers were served by the city’s acting police chief rather than the county sheriff.
The court rejected that argument, finding substantial compliance with Kentucky law and concluding that service was valid. As a result, the trial court properly exercised jurisdiction over the case
The Supreme Court’s ruling does not decide whether the city council lawfully removed Weddle from office. Instead, it sends the case back to the Court of Appeals to resolve that question.
Until that decision is made, Weddle will remain mayor of London.
Comments
No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here