The U.S. Supreme Court on June 15 declined to take up an appeal from 98-year-old Judge Pauline Newman seeking to reverse her suspension from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The high court's refusal leaves in place a lower court ruling that rejected Newman's legal challenge to her removal from active duties during a 2023 investigation into her fitness to serve.
Newman, a highly regarded figure in patent law who was appointed in 1984 by President Ronald Reagan, had asked the Supreme Court to overturn the Federal Circuit's suspension. The Federal Circuit, based in Washington, handles patent appeals nationwide and frequently decides intellectual property disputes that involve major companies.
Public court documents released in 2023 show that a panel of Federal Circuit judges cited staff reports describing Newman as suffering from "memory loss, confusion, paranoia and angry rants." Later that year, the court's council of all active judges - led by Chief Judge Kimberly Moore - voted unanimously to suspend Newman after concluding that she had refused to cooperate with an investigation into her ability to carry out judicial duties. That suspension remains in effect.
Judge Newman has consistently maintained that she is fit to continue serving. She filed suit in federal court in Washington against Chief Judge Moore and the council, arguing that the Federal Circuit exceeded its constitutional authority by suspending her and that the D.C. Circuit erred in concluding that federal law barred judicial review of the suspension.
A federal judge dismissed Newman's case in 2024, finding that courts have "consistently affirmed the judiciary's authority to police itself." The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed that dismissal in 2025. Separately, the Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability of the Judicial Conference of the United States - part of the federal judiciary's governing body - has also upheld the Federal Circuit's decision to suspend Newman.
In her petition to the Supreme Court, Newman argued that the actions taken by the Federal Circuit and the subsequent ruling by the D.C. Circuit violated her rights to due process and improperly circumvented the Constitution's provisions for removing federal judges through impeachment. In a filing to the high court, Newman wrote: "Chief Judge Moore has invoked the Disability Act improperly to perpetually sideline Judge Newman until she gives in to the bullying and retires or takes senior status." The comment referred to a 1980 law that gives a circuit court's judicial council the authority to investigate allegations of misconduct or disability by judges.
Chief Judge Moore, represented in filings by U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer, has responded that Newman's claims lack merit. Moore's filing asserted that the Judicial Conference - not a federal district court - is the proper body to review the suspension decision, effectively defending the internal processes the judiciary used in this matter.
Context and implications
- Newman's suspension stems from an internal inquiry that produced staff reports describing cognitive and behavioral concerns.
- The legal challenges raised by Newman have been dismissed at both the district court and D.C. Circuit court of appeals levels, and an internal judicial committee has also upheld the suspension.
- With the Supreme Court's refusal to hear the appeal, the Federal Circuit's suspension remains in place and the questions Newman raised about the scope of judicial council authority and reviewability of such suspensions will not be resolved by the high court at this time.
Procedural timeline
- 1984 - Newman appointed to the Federal Circuit by President Ronald Reagan.
- 2023 - Staff reports and an inquiry into Newman's fitness lead to a unanimous suspension vote by the Federal Circuit's active judges.
- 2024 - Federal district judge dismisses Newman's lawsuit challenging the suspension.
- 2025 - The D.C. Circuit upholds the dismissal.
- June 15, 2026 - The U.S. Supreme Court declines to hear Newman's appeal.
The court's decision not to grant review leaves in place the existing rulings and internal judicial determinations. The situation highlights an unresolved tension over how claims about a judge's fitness are handled within the federal judiciary and the extent to which those determinations are subject to judicial review by other courts.