Key facts
- The Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal from Judge Pauline Newman, who sought to end her suspension.
- Newman, who is 98 and will soon turn 99, was suspended from hearing new cases by her colleagues on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
- The suspension followed Newman's refusal to undergo mental fitness testing demanded by her colleagues.
- Newman argued her suspension was unconstitutional and a violation of judicial independence.
- A lower court had previously ruled it lacked the authority to hear Newman's lawsuit.
- Newman's colleagues, represented by the Justice Department, urged the Supreme Court to reject the appeal, citing separation-of-powers considerations.
The Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear the appeal of Pauline Newman, the oldest active federal judge, who sought to end her suspension from hearing new cases. Newman, who is 98 and will soon turn 99, was suspended by her colleagues on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit after she refused their demands for mental fitness testing. Newman contends the suspension is unconstitutional and a violation of judicial independence.
Newman's colleagues described her demeanor during investigatory interviews as "paranoid," "agitated," and "bizarre," alleging she needs assistance with basic tasks and has trouble retaining information. Newman, however, points to three mental tests performed by doctors that she says prove her fitness to serve. She was first appointed to the Federal Circuit in 1984 by then-President Reagan and is known for her opinions on patent law.
Newman's lawyers argued that her petition presented crucial constitutional and statutory questions regarding lifetime tenure and judicial independence, urging the justices to reverse a lower court ruling that found it lacked authority to hear the lawsuit. Represented by the Justice Department, Newman's colleagues argued that the case did not meet the Supreme Court's criteria for review and that federal district judges do not have the authority to hear challenges to judicial council decisions, citing separation-of-powers considerations.
Mark Chenoweth, president of the New Civil Liberties Alliance, which represented Newman, stated that the Supreme Court's denial means Newman's due process complaints will never receive a merits decision from an Article III court, calling it "inexcusable and truly inexplicable."