Supreme Court declines to hear nonagenarian Judge Pauline Newman’s challenge to suspension

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.