A 98-year-old federal appeals judge, nominated to the bench by President Reagan more than four decades ago, is now asking the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene after her own colleagues barred her from hearing cases for three straight years.
Judge Pauline Newman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit petitioned the Supreme Court on Thursday to reverse a lower-court ruling that blocked judicial review of her suspension, her lawyers confirmed to The Hill. The petition has not yet been docketed.
The case raises a constitutional question that should concern every federal judge in America and every citizen who cares about the separation of powers: Can a handful of colleagues on a single court effectively nullify a lifetime appointment guaranteed by the Constitution, without impeachment, without a Senate trial, and without any outside judicial review?
Newman was nominated by President Reagan to the newly created Federal Circuit in 1984. The court handles appeals on specialty topics, including intellectual property and government contracts. Newman became widely known for her patent law opinions, earning the nickname "the Great Dissenter."
In early 2023, her fellow judges prevented her from hearing new cases indefinitely. In spring 2023, Federal Circuit Chief Judge Kimberly Moore began misconduct procedures under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act, a federal statute governing complaints about judicial behavior, after unsuccessfully trying to convince Newman to retire.
During investigatory interviews, unnamed employees allegedly described Newman's demeanor as "paranoid," "agitated" and "bizarre," according to court documents. Those same unnamed employees alleged that Newman needs assistance with basic tasks, claims the court has bugged her phones, and repeatedly seems to have trouble retaining information.
Newman was suspended from hearing new cases after she refused to undergo medical examinations. Her colleagues have extended that suspension multiple times, most recently in August. Newman rejects the claim that she is unfit to serve and points to three mental tests performed by three different doctors.
The constitutional stakes here are plain. The Constitution guarantees federal judges their position and salary for life, unless they are impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate. Newman's colleagues have not attempted impeachment. They have instead used an internal administrative process to achieve something the Founders reserved for Congress alone: removing a judge from active service.
Newman filed a formal lawsuit against her fellow judges soon after being suspended. She argues that her suspension is unconstitutional and that her due process rights were violated because her colleagues should have transferred the matter to another court.
Last summer, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit found that its own binding precedent barred review of Newman's claims. But the D.C. Circuit's opinion stressed that this procedural bar does not mean her arguments lack merit. The court wrote at the time:
Judge Newman has posed important and serious questions about whether these Judicial Conduct and Disability Act proceedings comport with constitutional due process principles and whether her ongoing suspension comports with the structure of our Constitution.
That D.C. Circuit precedent, however, does not bind the Supreme Court. Newman's legal team is now asking the justices to take up the case and reject the lower court's reasoning outright.
Newman is represented by the New Civil Liberties Alliance, a libertarian public-interest firm, and by prominent conservative attorney Jonathan Mitchell. Mitchell has argued more than a half-dozen cases before the Supreme Court justices, including his successful representation of President Trump in the appeal of Colorado's decision to remove Trump from the 2024 presidential ballot.
Newman's attorneys framed the case as a direct threat to judicial independence in their petition to the Court:
This Court cannot allow the internal politics of a court to sideline a Senate-confirmed judge and threaten the independence of other judges who may fear similar reprisals from their colleagues.
The petition also warned of a chilling effect across the federal judiciary:
Other judges who are watching what is happening to Judge Newman can only wonder if a similar fate will befall them if they fail to stay on the good side of their chief judge.
Her lawyers added that the situation must be resolved before further constitutional damage is done:
All of this needs to be nipped in the bud before any further damage is done to the Constitution's protections of judicial independence.
The suspension has kept Newman away from active cases at the Federal Circuit for over three years now, including the high-profile fight over President Trump's emergency tariffs. Newman attended last year's oral arguments in the tariff case from the public gallery's second row, sitting face-to-face with the colleagues who barred her from the bench.
That image alone tells the story of what is at stake. A Senate-confirmed judge, appointed by a president, serving for over 40 years, forced to watch proceedings from the spectator seats by colleagues who used an internal administrative mechanism rather than the impeachment process the Founders wrote into the Constitution.
The Supreme Court justices will review Newman's petition at a closed-door conference in the upcoming months. The Court chooses its own docket and turns away the vast majority of petitions without comment. Authorities have not publicly confirmed a specific date for that conference.
Whether the justices take this case will signal how seriously they view the creeping power of internal judicial conduct proceedings to override Article III protections, meaning the constitutional guarantee of life tenure for federal judges. If a group of colleagues can functionally remove a judge without impeachment, and no court can review that decision, then the constitutional promise of an independent judiciary is worth nothing more than the goodwill of a chief judge.
