Kimberly Moore and fellow jurists from Federal Circuit Court of Appeals continue their determined efforts to oust Judge Pauline Newman, the oldest sitting judge in the nation. Despite a hefty caseload of patent litigation and veterans benefits issues, they are focused on preventing Newman from presiding over—and likely dissenting from—their cases. Bloomberg Law reports that Newman is fervently objecting to her suspension from hearing cases.
Proclaiming her arguments with characteristic fire, Newman is insisting that her lawsuit against her suspension should continue. She calls for the US District Court for the District of Columbia to issue an injunction, “restoring her to the bench immediately.”
Newman is outspoken about the constitutional violations she sees in the actions of her colleagues. She claims that their attempts to effectively impeach her are “absolutely in violation of the Constitution,” as she told Above the Law in a previous interview.
The Federal Circuit’s response has been to try to quash Newman’s complaints. However, Newman retaliated to the Council’s request to dismiss her lawsuit by stating that the district court lacks the authority to review the body’s disciplinary actions. Newman and her lawyer, Greg Dolin, argue that the idea of a judicial circuit council being beyond review mechanisms is an exercise in “arbitrary power,” in violation of Constitutional principles. They further contend that the Council’s actions were not judicial, but administrative when they suspended her.
It remains to be seen if the Supreme Court will be involved. The Council insists that it is the only place for Newman to challenge their decision. Newman, on the other hand, disputes this. She insists that administrative body actions should be reviewed via original district court proceedings, rather than Supreme Court mandates.
The root of the problem could potentially be resolved if the case was moved to another district, as Newman initially suggested. This simple shift could circumvent the multiple due process issues that arise from judging, juries, and punishments being borne by one’s own colleagues. As this legal quagmire unravels, it’s not the first time Judge Newman has proven right in dissenting from panel decisions, a point highlighted in an entire research paper.