U.S. Circuit Judge Pauline Newman, the nation’s oldest sitting federal judge at 97, is facing suspension after concerns were raised about her mental health. Her colleagues reported troubling behaviors, including delays in her work and signs of confusion. An investigation was launched into her mental state, which found significant evidence of memory loss, lack of comprehension, and confusion. The investigation led the Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability to recommend that Newman undergo a 30-45 minute interview with a neurologist and a full neuropsychological evaluation.
Newman, however, refused to cooperate with the investigation, prompting the committee to issue a suspension that prevents her from taking on new cases. In response, Newman filed a lawsuit against Chief Circuit Judge Kimberly A. Moore and other members of the judicial committee, with representation from the New Civil Liberties Alliance, a public-interest law firm. This lawsuit challenged the suspension and the constitutionality of the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act, which governs such actions.
In February, U.S. District Judge Christopher R. Cooper dismissed most of Newman’s lawsuit, later throwing out the entire case in July. Cooper’s ruling focused on rejecting the legal challenges Newman raised against the Act itself, rather than addressing the factual allegations about her behavior. Newman appealed the dismissal, arguing for the unsealing of documents related to the investigation, claiming the judicial council was attempting to control the media narrative about her mental health.
In January 2025, the Judicial Council of the Federal Circuit filed a brief opposing Newman’s appeal. The council argued that Newman’s suspension was not unconstitutional, noting that the only legal question at hand was whether the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act was “facially constitutional.” The council contended that Newman’s challenge to the Act was without merit. It emphasized that a temporary suspension from new case assignments is not the same as removal from office, as the law allows for time-limited suspensions.
The council further stated that Newman’s suspension was not permanent and could be reconsidered if she chose to cooperate with the investigation. It noted that the suspension orders were temporary and subject to renewal, with the process of renewal being carefully considered. The council also rejected Newman’s argument that she should be transferred to another circuit’s judicial council, stating that nothing in the Act required such a transfer and that her dissatisfaction with the decisions of her current circuit was not enough to justify one.
The council’s brief underscored that Newman had received more due process than the constitutional minimum guarantees, and that the suspension was entirely in line with other temporary suspensions for misconduct. Despite the ongoing suspension, the council made clear that her removal from the bench was not a certainty, and that her situation could change if she chose to cooperate with the investigation.
Newman, appointed in 1984 by President Ronald Reagan, served as a distinguished judge on the Federal Circuit for nearly four decades. The legal proceedings surrounding her suspension highlight the tension between judicial oversight and the protections afforded to judges, particularly in cases involving mental health and competency.
