On Friday, September 1, 2023, Chief Judge of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Kimberly A. Moore, et al, filed a combined memorandum in support of their motion to dismiss and in opposition to Federal Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Pauline Newman’s preliminary-injunction motion. The defendants’ combined memorandum was filed before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
The case is entitled “Hon. Pauline Newman v. Hon. Kimberly A. Moore, et al.,” with case no. 1:23-cv-01334-CRC.
On April 12, 2023, Chief Judge Kimberly Moore lodged a judicial complaint against the 95-year-old jurist, asserting that there was reasonable cause to suspect the latter’s capacity to adequately fulfill the responsibilities of her office. The accusation primarily revolved around Judge Newman’s perceived tardiness in delivering opinions, resulting in an impact on the smooth operation of the justice system. Additionally, Judge Moore had disclosed that she had been informed of accounts from colleagues and court personnel that had prompted her to voice reservations regarding Judge Newman’s overall suitability for service.
In response to the allegations, on May 10, 2023, Honorable Pauline Newman filed an action for declaratory and injunctive relief against Moore and several other justices before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Newman alleged that Moore’s orders and threats were aimed at removing her from office and subsequently barring her from hearing cases, all without impeachment, which she argued violated the U.S. Constitution. Newman contended that neither the act nor the conduct rules authorized such actions, emphasizing that a Chief Judge acting alone or a judicial council could not issue directives preventing an active Article III judge from handling cases in regular order during an ongoing investigation. She also maintained that the investigation, conducted by a committee including witnesses to the alleged disability, breached due process principles.
Furthermore, Newman argued that subjecting an Article III judge to medical or psychiatric examination, or compelling the surrender of private medical records for disability assessment, was not authorized by the act or the U.S. Constitution. She asserted her Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizures, emphasizing the lack of a warrant or a constitutionally reasonable basis for such examinations. Based on these grounds, Newman sought declaratory and injunctive relief, including a declaration of the Act’s unconstitutionality and an injunction against its enforcement, a halt to any ongoing proceedings by the Judicial Council, and termination of further investigations.
In a recent development, Moore along with other justices filed a combined memorandum in support of their motion to dismiss and in opposition to Newman’s preliminary injunction motion. They argue that Judge Newman’s claims are jurisdictionally deficient and meritless. They point out that her challenges to two statutes that enable effective self-governance within the judiciary are unfounded.
The Defendant’s memorandum states:
“Judge Newman now asks this Court to intervene in decisions that Congress intended numerous other federal judges to make. Worse yet, she attempts to do so by challenging two statutes that have long enabled the judiciary to effectively govern itself. While no one questions Judge Newman’s many contributions to the law, her legal claims here are jurisdiction-all-deficient and meritless. The Court should dismiss her case and deny her preliminary – injunction motion.”
Furthermore, they contend that all of Newman’s claims are precluded by the act’s judicial review bar, which establishes that orders and determinations are final and not subject to judicial review. They emphasize that the court has no original jurisdiction over its own circuit’s judicial council, let alone the Federal Circuit’s. They stated that if Newman desires judicial review, she should seek it in a court with appellate jurisdiction over the Federal Circuit. They asserted that the suit is, at its core, collateral litigation over issues that should be reviewed elsewhere.
The Defendant’s memorandum continues:
“Second, Plaintiff’s suit is, at the bottom, no more than collateral litigation over issues that should be reviewed elsewhere. This Court has no original jurisdiction to review the actions of its own circuit’s judicial council, let alone the Federal Circuit’s. If Plaintiff desires judicial review of judicial council orders outside the Act’s review procedures, she must seek review in a court with appellate jurisdiction over the Federal Circuit.”
Additionally, the memorandum highlights that granting the injunction of Newman could disrupt the functioning of the Federal Circuit, potentially causing delays in case resolutions. They argue that there is no basis for the court to intervene at this stage and that the public interest lies in upholding Congress’s statutory scheme for effective and expeditious administration of justice. The memorandum concluded by urging the court to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint and deny the preliminary injunction motion as moot.
The conclusion states:
“For the reasons explained above, the Court should dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint and deny Plaintiffs ’ preliminary – injunction motion as moot.”
Judge Newman attended the New York University School of Law, graduating in 1952.
Judge Newman sits as a Federal Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which is located at 717 Madison Place, NW, Washington, DC 20439, and can be reached at (202) 275-8000. Her info can be found on Ballotpedia.org.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
