On May 19, 2005, the Kentucky Supreme Court issued a 4–3 decision stating that the General Assembly had acted unconstitutionally by not passing a budget and that Fletcher had acted outside his constitutional authority by spending money not specifically appropriated by the legislature. The majority opinion rejected the lower court's exception for "specific essential services", saying "If the legislative department fails to appropriate funds deemed sufficient to operate the executive department at a desired level of services, the executive department must serve the citizenry as best it can with what it is given. If the citizenry deems those services insufficient, it will exercise its own constitutional power — the ballot." Chief Justice Joseph Lambert dissented, claiming the executive spending plan was necessary. Two other justices, in a separate opinion, disagreed with the majority that federal and state constitutional mandates should still be funded in the absence of a budget. In their dissent, they argued that the threat of a government shutdown would act as an impetus for the General Assembly to engage in timely budget-making. The decision took no retroactive steps to change the actions it ruled unconstitutional, but it served as a precedent for any future cases of budgetary gridlock.