Posted on 06/16/2026 9:45:35 PM PDT by Red Badger
Newman, who turns 99 this week, has been barred from receiving new case assignments since 2023 following an investigation into concerns about her mental fitness and ability to perform judicial duties
The Supreme Court has declined to hear a challenge brought by 98-year-old Federal Circuit Judge Pauline Newman, leaving in place her suspension from hearing new cases at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Newman, who turns 99 this week, has been barred from receiving new case assignments since 2023 following an investigation into concerns about her mental fitness and ability to perform judicial duties. She has consistently disputed those findings and challenged the process that led to her suspension.
In her petition, Newman argued that the Federal Circuit improperly used the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 to effectively remove her from active judicial service without impeachment or meaningful judicial review. Her attorneys, including lawyers from the New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA), contended that the suspension raises significant constitutional questions concerning judicial independence and the lifetime tenure protections afforded to Article III judges.
By denying certiorari, the Supreme Court left intact lower court decisions that rejected or limited review of Newman’s claims. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit previously concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over key aspects of the dispute under existing interpretations of the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act.
Supporters of Newman, including amici such as the Buckeye Institute, argued that actions taken by Federal Circuit Chief Judge Kimberly Moore and the court’s Judicial Council exceeded the authority granted by Congress and implicated separation-of-powers concerns. Newman has also maintained that medical evaluations support her continued ability to serve.
The suspension arose from concerns about Newman’s fitness and judicial performance, including questions regarding her productivity. Newman has argued that the proceedings were procedurally deficient and that an indefinite suspension from new case assignments functions as an unconstitutional removal from office.
The Court’s decision not to hear the case leaves unresolved broader questions about the scope of judicial disciplinary authority and the availability of judicial review for Judicial Council orders issued under the Disability Act.
Although Newman retains her position as a federal judge, she remains suspended from active casework.
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
WHAAT?!
SPEAK UP!!!
Well, At least she’s not having noisy sex in her chambers..............😫
I’m not familiar with this judge. Is she known for strict Constitutional interpretation or does she legislate from the bench? Is she conservative or progressive? Tough on crime or a wuss?
I suspect the answers to the above might be revealing.
Are you sure? She looks pretty spry in that photo.
Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. retired from that court after reaching age 90, after some prodding from his colleagues. He set a precedent that too many federal judges have ignored, in no small part because they can take “senior judge” status and continue to collect a full paycheck for doing very little work. Get a 90 year old judge assigned to your case and it can take them 2 years to issue a normal decision. Complain about it and face retaliation from either the judge or his cronies.
I don’t know, but there must be a website that has her political opinions somewhere.............
Appointed by Reagan.
Some folks can’t take a hint.
Judge Newman responds to Supreme Court decision:
“This is NOT over!!”
Appointed by Reagan.
All of these 80-90 year old judges need to step aside so that a Republican appointed judge can replace them. Ruth Bader Ginsburg waited too long.
She serves on a court that doesn’t really deal with criminal matters. Her opinions have been cited by the Supreme Court in reversing decisions more often than not, she actually has a record that improved in her later years. Former Chief Judge of her appellate court, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, has suggested the CAFC should issue an apology to her. It’s a very messy situation regarding their disciplinary process. She is very sharp even as old as she is.
Here she is speaking back in September 2025 - less than year ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2WtzsbjG1o
She sounds sharp to me...of course, I don’t know that that translates to being able to handle a caseload and the work that entails.
She was appointed by President Reagan and has been on the Appeals Court since 1984.
It doesn’t appear she has taken “senior” status - when they do that, they can continue to serve part time “as needed” for cases but still have their full-time judicial post have a new appointee. Wonder why she doesn’t do that?
God nudged her, just in time I might add.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.