Judge Newman’s D.C. Lawsuit Against Fellow Judges Largely Dismissed on Jurisdictional Grounds

by Dennis Crouch

Federal Circuit Judge Pauline Newman has been fighting for her right to judge after charges implicating her fitness for office.  Earlier this month, a committee of federal judges upheld Newman’s one-year suspension from new case assignments for refusing to cooperate with a misconduct investigation.  Newman had separately sued her colleagues in DC District Court, but Judge Cooper has now dismissed most of that lawsuit on jurisdictional grounds. While a few counts remain, the court’s ruling deals a serious blow to Judge Newman’s attempt to challenge the judiciary’s self-policing procedures.  Newman v. Moore, 23-cv-01334 (D.D.C., February 12, 2024). Newman v. Moore Decision.

The lawsuit centers around reports from Federal Circuit staff in 2021 about troubling behavior by Judge Newman potentially indicative of memory loss and confusion. These reports triggered Chief Circuit Judge Kimberly Moore to file a misconduct complaint against Newman under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act. A special committee of Federals Circuit judges investigated the allegations against Judge Newman. When Newman refused the committee’s requests to undergo medical examinations and provide certain medical records, the committee narrowed its probe to focus on whether her refusal constituted misconduct. Ultimately, the committee concluded that her defiant stance constituted misconduct warranting suspension from new case assignments.  This committee’s conclusion was then confirmed by the Federal Circuit Judicial Council, a committee consisting of the 11 other Federal Circuit judges.

Judge Newman then sued — alleging various constitutional violations. In its opinion, the district court dismissed over half of Newman’s claims, citing binding DC Circuit precedent holding that the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act channels review of as-applied challenges to the Judicial Conference rather than district courts.  28 U.S.C. § 357(c). And, the Judicial Conference has already rejected her claims.

The key precedent relied upon by the district court here is McBryde v. Comm. to Rev. Cir. Council Conduct & Disability Ords. of Jud. Conf. of U.S., 264 F.3d 52, 64 (D.C. Cir. 2001).

Judge McBryde argued that “the clause vesting the impeachment power in Congress [] preclude[d] all other methods of disciplining judges.” … The circuit disagreed, concluding that the Constitution “sheltered” judges “from removal and salary diminution,” absent impeachment, but not “from lesser sanctions of every sort.”

Newman v. Moore at 33.

What is left are two facial challenges to the Act itself. After analyzing two of those challenges, the court found no likelihood Newman would succeed and thus refused to preliminarily enjoin enforcement of her case suspension.

The key facial challenge is that the Judicial Disability Act unconstitutionally delegates Congress’s impeachment power by allowing the suspension of Article III judges. But the district court squarely rejected this theory in a prior case, at least at this preliminary stage. According to the court, the Constitution protects judges only from removal or salary diminution, not lesser sanctions. Thus, discipline short of impeachment does not impinge on Congress’s role.

The sanction here is akin to a permanent bar (one year + renewals), especially for a 96 year old human.  While Judge Newman tried to distinguish the precedent based on long-term suspensions potentially being equivalent to an unconstitutional “removal,” the court construed her facial claim as covering suspensions of any duration. Because binding precedent permits at least some suspensions under the act, the court found no likelihood Newman could show that every suspension application violates separation of powers.

I believe that at this point Judge Newman will have the ability to immediately appeal the denial of preliminary relief to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals.

Judicial Misconduct Sanction Against Judge Newman Affirmed

26 thoughts on “Judge Newman’s D.C. Lawsuit Against Fellow Judges Largely Dismissed on Jurisdictional Grounds

  1. 7

    Still crickets from my usual naysayers, so let’s throw another log on the bonfire under them:

    Those screaming against Judge Newman appear more than fine with this:

    link to facebook.com

    and yes, that is both indefensible and a clear sign of duplicity.

    1. 7.1

      Still crickets.

      I am shocked, shocked I tell you.

    2. 7.2

      Still crickets.

      Not surprising.

      (but certain people will still whine about “last words”

  2. 6

    What judge Moore (justifiably) now fears most: Discovery.

    1. 6.1

      Won’t the “Lapdogs” protect her?

      1. 6.1.1

        Wrong lapdogs.

        But you already knew that, Examiner Ben, didn’t you?

  3. 5

    What are the odds that “Malcolm and the Breeze” will continue their choices of **crickets** per the sub-thread 2 below?

  4. 4

    At 96 (97 in a few months), I don’t understand why she doesn’t just take Senior status. Who needs the aggravation? And you can still hear cases…

    1. 4.1

      I don’t understand why you don’t understand that THAT should be HER decision.

      1. 4.1.1

        Because she is going to lose. You just like being Contrarian, don’t you?

        1. 4.1.1.1

          I do not think that being correct is being contrarian.

          And though she may lose, Justice – especially given her pedigree – is exactly why she fights the good fight.

            1. 4.1.1.1.1.1

              Absolutely.

          1. 4.1.1.1.2

            “I do not think that being correct is being contrarian.”

            Have you ever had an opportunity to test this theory?

            1. 4.1.1.1.2.1

              How would you propose such a test?

  5. 3

    What a difference in Headlines:

    “Judge Cooper Denies Injunction But Keeps Newman Case Alive on Key Counts”

    link to ipwatchdog.com

    1. 3.1

      … and for 6: the byline:

      ““None of the complaints about [Newman’s] potential disability have been substantiated.” – Judge Cooper”

      1. 3.1.1

        Everyone gets it. They await the ability to substantiate them.

        1. 3.1.1.1

          nonsense 6 – try to keep up.

  6. 2

    The tendency of certain personality types to double down every time is really something to behold. I’m trying to imagine how desperate someone would have to be to argue that the Constitution precludes every type of discipline or sanction of a Federal judge except those brought by Congress. That takes ignorance multiplied by arrogance multiplied by some sort of cocaine-addled delusion. But I suppose each of these people imagine themselves as Gene Hackman in the Poseidon Adventure. Good luck with that.

    1. 2.1

      How do you feel about the competency of Biden?

      In comparison or otherwise.

      Or, is this yet another thing that you have not been given a Sprint Left ‘opinion’ to mouth, yet (much like the Israel/Hamas fiasco that you cannot figure out which side to take)…

      1. 2.1.1

        “For so many years people have been saying that Elvis and I look alike,” Mr Trump posted on Saturday. “Now this pic has been going all over the place. What do you think?”

        1. 2.1.1.1

          I think Trump is full of nonsense, and often purposefully says things so that the media goes nuts.

          Your turn.

          And no, I do not mean for you to do what you always do: run away.

          Take a position. If you are not a lemming or if you are not afraid (or both).

        2. 2.1.1.2

          … and P00py Diaper, feel free to invite your newfound shadow Smelly Breeze to also man up and take a solid, cogent position.

          That is, if you could stop staring into each other’s glossy eyes.

          :biglaugh:

  7. 1

    Lapdogs here, there, and everywhere.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You can click here to Subscribe without commenting

Add a picture