The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear an appeal from Judge Pauline Newman, leaving in place her suspension from hearing cases on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit amid ongoing concerns about her ability to continue serving.
At 98 years old, Newman is one of the longest-serving federal appellate judges in the country. She has served on the Federal Circuit since 1984. The court, established in 1982, handles appeals involving patents, trademarks, international trade, veterans’ benefits, and monetary claims against the federal government.
Over a judicial career spanning more than four decades, Newman became widely known for her independent views and prolific dissenting opinions. Having written more than 300 dissents, she earned the nickname “The Great Dissenter.”
Suspension Stemmed From Concerns About Judicial Fitness
The dispute began three years ago when the Judicial Council of the Federal Circuit suspended Newman from hearing cases. Around the same time, Chief Judge Kimberly Moore suggested that Newman either retire or assume senior status, a form of semi-retirement that allows judges to carry a reduced caseload.
Newman rejected both options.
Following her refusal, Moore initiated a judicial misconduct proceeding, citing concerns about Newman’s health and her ability to perform the duties required of an active federal judge.
The complaint alleged there was probable cause to believe that Newman’s medical condition had impaired her capacity to fulfill judicial responsibilities and that repeated delays in handling cases were negatively affecting court operations.
Health Concerns Prompted Investigation
The allegations referenced health issues Newman reportedly experienced in 2021, along with a fainting incident in 2022. Moore also pointed to concerns raised by fellow judges and court staff regarding Newman’s ability to keep pace with her workload.
A special committee consisting of two Federal Circuit judges was formed to evaluate her fitness for service. The panel requested that Newman undergo neurological and neuropsychological evaluations, provide medical records, and participate in interviews as part of the investigation.
Although Newman submitted reports from two medical experts supporting her ability to continue serving, the committee ultimately recommended that she be barred from hearing cases for one year.
In September 2023, the Judicial Council formally adopted that recommendation.
Multiple Appeals Failed
Newman challenged the suspension through several legal avenues.
She first appealed to a panel of the Judicial Conference of the United States, the federal judiciary’s policymaking body. However, the panel rejected her challenge in February 2024.
The Federal Circuit later extended her suspension in September 2024 and again in August 2025, preventing her from returning to active judicial duties.
Constitutional Challenge Filed
While suspended, Newman filed a lawsuit against Chief Judge Moore and other Federal Circuit judges, arguing that the actions taken against her effectively removed her from office despite constitutional protections guaranteeing federal judges lifetime tenure.
She also claimed that her due process rights had been violated.
However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled against Newman. The court determined that the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act limits certain constitutional challenges to actions taken by judicial councils.
Newman’s Attorneys Criticized Suspension Process
In asking the Supreme Court to review the case, Newman’s legal team argued that the suspension represented an unconstitutional effort to sideline a judge known for frequently disagreeing with her colleagues.
According to her attorneys, the actions taken by Chief Judge Moore and other Federal Circuit judges threatened judicial independence and created a dangerous precedent for other federal judges.
They argued that allowing colleagues to effectively remove a sitting judge without meaningful judicial review could undermine protections designed to preserve an independent judiciary.
The Justice Department, representing Moore and the other judges involved in the matter, urged the Supreme Court not to take up the case.
Supreme Court Lets Suspension Stand
By declining to hear the appeal, the Supreme Court left intact the lower court rulings and Newman’s ongoing suspension.
The decision does not address the merits of the case directly but effectively ends her current effort to challenge the suspension through the nation’s highest court.
Supporters Express Disappointment
The New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA), which has represented Newman throughout the legal battle, criticized the Supreme Court’s decision.
Mark Chenoweth, the organization’s president, described the outcome as a setback for judicial independence and argued that Newman’s constitutional claims would never receive a full hearing on their merits before an Article III court.
The group indicated it intends to continue advocating for Newman’s reinstatement despite the Supreme Court’s refusal to intervene.