On Friday, August 22, 2025, Courthouse News reported that a D.C. Circuit panel upheld the suspension of 98-year-old U.S. Circuit Judge Pauline Newman from hearing new cases at the Federal Circuit, ruling she cannot challenge the decision on constitutional grounds in federal court.

The three-judge panel determined that Newman’s challenge must be directed to the Judicial Conference of the United States, the sole entity authorized to review her suspension.

Newman, appointed by President Ronald Reagan, is the oldest active federal judge who has not opted for senior status, a form of semi-retirement. The suspension stems from her refusal to comply with a 2023 investigation into her mental fitness, prompted by Federal Circuit Chief Judge Kimberly Moore after observing signs of cognitive and physical decline.

Newman contested the legality of the requested medical examinations and records, leading to a special committee of the Federal Circuit suspending her from new case assignments for one year. The Federal Circuit’s Judicial Council later extended the suspension, with a review scheduled for September 2025.

The Judicial Council Reform and Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 allows circuit councils to investigate and discipline their peers, including suspending them from cases. The Federal Circuit’s Judicial Council, composed of the court’s 12 judges, excluded Newman, reducing its membership to 11 for recent cases, such as arguments over former President Donald Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs.

Newman filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in May 2023, alleging the Judicial Council violated her due process rights by ignoring conflicts of interest and refusing to transfer her case to another circuit.

In February 2024, U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper ruled that precedent from McBryde v. Committee to Review Circuit Council Conduct & Disability Orders of the Judicial Conference of the United States required Newman’s claims to be reviewed exclusively by the Judicial Conference.

The D.C. Circuit panel, led by Judge Bradley Garcia, a Joe Biden appointee, and joined by Judges Patricia Millett and Cornelia Pillard, both Barack Obama appointees, affirmed Cooper’s ruling.

Newman raised three constitutional arguments: that the 1980 statute’s suspension provision is unconstitutional, that its application effectively removed her from office, and that her colleagues violated her due process rights. She contended that impeachment is the only legitimate method for removing a federal judge.

The panel rejected Newman’s argument that the Supreme Court’s 2018 decision in SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu overruled McBryde, clarifying that SAS addressed a differently worded statutory bar and did not apply to Newman’s case. The court noted that the 1980 Act’s legislative history clearly directs as-applied constitutional challenges to the Judicial Conference, not federal courts.

The panel did not rule on the merits of Newman’s constitutional claims, acknowledging they raise significant questions about due process compliance.

John Vecchione, Newman’s attorney from the New Civil Liberties Alliance, stated in an email that the judge is considering her next steps.

“We are evaluating the opinion but it is interesting that the court ended with a thoughtful discussion of the seriousness of Judge Newman’s position and avenues of possible redress, as well as a critique of its own precedent,” Vecchione said.

 

 

Source: Courthouse News