In a striking decision, a D.C. Circuit panel ruled Friday that 98-year-old Judge Pauline Newman, the oldest active federal judge, cannot contest her suspension from the U.S. Circuit Court for the Federal Circuit in federal court on constitutional grounds.
According to Courthouse News Service, the ruling upholds a prior decision that such challenges must be reviewed exclusively by the Judicial Conference of the United States, leaving unresolved significant concerns about judicial independence and due process in Newman's case.
Judge Pauline Newman, a Ronald Reagan appointee, has served on the Federal Circuit for decades without taking senior status, a form of semi-retirement often chosen by older judges. At 98, she remains the oldest active federal judge in the nation. Her tenure took a controversial turn in March 2023 when Federal Circuit Chief Judge Kimberly Moore initiated an inquiry into Newman’s mental fitness, citing observed signs of cognitive and physical impairment.
The investigation was conducted under the Judicial Council Reform and Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980, which permits in-house circuit councils to investigate judges and take actions such as suspending them from new cases. Newman, however, refused to comply with requests for medical exams and records, asserting that such demands were unlawful. As a result, a special committee for the Federal Circuit suspended her from new case assignments for one year, a decision later extended by the Federal Circuit’s Judicial Council.
Each circuit court, including the Federal Circuit, has its own judicial council, which in this case consists of 11 active judges due to Newman’s suspension, reducing the usual count of 12. Her absence notably affected recent proceedings, such as arguments on President Donald Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs, which were heard by the remaining 11 judges. The Federal Circuit’s Judicial Council is set to review Newman’s suspension again in September, potentially determining the next steps in this ongoing saga.
In response to her suspension, Newman filed a lawsuit in May 2023 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging that the Judicial Council violated her due process rights. She claimed the council ignored conflicts of interest and refused to transfer her case to another circuit for a fair review. Newman also argued that impeachment is the only valid method for removing a judge, challenging the legality of her suspension.
In February 2024, U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper ruled against Newman, stating that Congress intended for claims like hers to be handled exclusively by the Judicial Conference, not federal courts. Cooper cited precedent from the case McBryde v. Committee to Review Circuit Council Conduct & Disability Orders, which supported channeling such disputes away from regular court review. This decision set the stage for Newman’s appeal to the D.C. Circuit, seeking a different outcome.
The D.C. Circuit panel, made up of Judges Bradley Garcia (a Joe Biden appointee), Patricia Millett, and Cornelia Pillard (both Barack Obama appointees), affirmed Cooper’s ruling on Friday. The panel concluded that challenges to Newman’s suspension must be reviewed by the Judicial Conference of the United States, the only body authorized to handle such matters. They emphasized that their decision did not address the merits of Newman’s constitutional arguments, leaving those issues unresolved.
Newman raised three key constitutional claims in her appeal, including that the 1980 statute allowing case suspensions is inherently unlawful. She also argued that her suspension effectively removed her from office improperly and that her colleagues violated her due process rights during the process. Additionally, Newman contended that a 2018 Supreme Court ruling in SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu overruled prior precedent like McBryde, asserting that judicial review cannot be barred in cases where an agency exceeds its authority.
The D.C. Circuit panel disagreed with Newman’s interpretation, stating that the SAS ruling applied different principles to a distinct statutory provision and did not override McBryde. They noted that McBryde clearly established that as-applied constitutional challenges must be directed to the Judicial Conference, not federal courts. The panel admitted they lacked the authority to overrule McBryde or reevaluate its correctness, binding them to existing precedent.
Judge Bradley Garcia, in the panel’s opinion, acknowledged the gravity of Newman’s situation, stating, “The seeming absence of a judicial forum to address Newman’s as-applied constitutional claims itself raises constitutional concerns.”
He further noted, “Judge Newman presents substantial arguments that her suspension — which has now lasted nearly two years, with a third year recommended — threatens the principle of judicial independence and may violate the separation of powers.” Garcia also highlighted legislative history, saying, “In the Act’s legislative history, we discerned ‘clear and convincing’ evidence of Congress’s intent to channel review of as-applied challenges to the Judicial Conference alone and away from federal courts.”
John Vecchione of the New Civil Liberties Alliance, representing Newman, commented on the ruling, saying, “We are evaluating the opinion but it is interesting that the court ended with a thoughtful discussion of the seriousness of Judge Newman’s position and avenues of possible redress, as well as a critique of its own precedent.” The statement reflects a cautious optimism about potential next steps for Newman’s case. While the D.C. Circuit’s decision closes one chapter, it leaves open significant questions about how such disputes should be resolved.
The panel itself recognized that Newman’s case raises important issues about due process and whether the current system adequately protects judicial independence. As the Judicial Conference review looms, the outcome could set a precedent for how aging judges or those facing fitness inquiries are treated. For now, Newman remains suspended, with her constitutional arguments awaiting a different forum for consideration.