On Friday, April 25, 2025, Reuters reported that a U.S. appeals court panel expressed doubts regarding the ability of 97-year-old Judge Pauline Newman to revive her lawsuit challenging her suspension from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
During the proceedings held on Thursday, judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit questioned Newman’s attorney about claims that her suspension violated the U.S. Constitution due to her alleged failure to cooperate with an investigation into her judicial fitness.
The panel’s skepticism was evident as they scrutinized not only Newman’s arguments but also the Federal Circuit’s choice to not transfer the investigation to another appeals court. They raised concerns about the constitutionality of specific aspects of the law that facilitated her suspension.
Newman, who has not opted for senior status and remains the oldest sitting U.S. federal judge, was appointed to the Federal Circuit by President Ronald Reagan in 1984. She is recognized for her expertise in patent law and has often dissented in high-profile intellectual property cases.
The investigation into Newman’s fitness began after the Federal Circuit’s Chief Judge, Kimberly Moore, publicly stated in 2023 that Newman exhibited significant cognitive and physical impairments. Following this, the court’s Judicial Council, made up of active judges, suspended Newman after determining she had refused to cooperate with inquiries about her ability to serve.
Newman has steadfastly maintained her capability to serve on the bench and has initiated legal action against the Judicial Council in response to her suspension. The appeal was heard by the D.C. Circuit after a Washington district court dismissed her lawsuit last year.
During the hearing, Newman’s lawyer, Greg Dolin of the New Civil Liberties Alliance, argued that the suspension, which is subject to annual renewal, constituted an unconstitutional impeachment that could only be executed by Congress.
Judge Patricia Millett described this as an “extraordinary proposition,” questioning the implication that impeachment was the sole method for removing judges from their positions. She illustrated her point with a hypothetical scenario involving a judge in a hospital, suggesting that immediate action could be necessary rather than waiting for an impeachment process.
Judge Cornelia Pillard reinforced Millett’s perspective, drawing from personal experience with a family member suffering from dementia. Pillard questioned whether the judicial system had mechanisms in place to address the situations of judges whose cognitive abilities were compromised.
Source: Reuters
