The Federal Circuit has formally requested that the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decline Judge Pauline Newman’s petition for a rehearing concerning her suspension from the bench. This development underscores the judiciary’s stance on managing its internal disciplinary matters without external intervention.
Judge Newman, who has served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit since 1984, was suspended in September 2023 following an investigation into her fitness to serve. The Judicial Council of the Federal Circuit cited concerns about her cognitive abilities and alleged non-cooperation with the inquiry as primary reasons for the suspension. Judge Newman, now 98, has consistently contested these findings, asserting that the proceedings violated her constitutional rights and due process.
In response to her suspension, Judge Newman filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, challenging the actions of her colleagues. The district court dismissed her claims, referencing the D.C. Circuit’s precedent in McBryde v. Committee to Review Circuit Council Conduct & Disability Orders of the Judicial Conference of the United States, which limits judicial review of such internal disciplinary actions. Judge Newman subsequently appealed this dismissal to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
In September 2025, the New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA), representing Judge Newman, petitioned for an en banc rehearing by the full D.C. Circuit. The NCLA argued that the panel’s reliance on the McBryde decision was misplaced and that the case warranted reconsideration due to its significant constitutional implications. The petition emphasized that Judge Newman’s indefinite suspension without a definitive end date effectively removed her from office without the constitutionally mandated impeachment process.
The Federal Circuit’s recent request to the D.C. Circuit to deny this rehearing petition reinforces the position that the judiciary possesses the authority to oversee and resolve its internal disciplinary matters. This stance aligns with the principle of judicial independence, suggesting that external courts should refrain from intervening in the self-regulation of the judiciary.
As this legal battle continues, it raises critical questions about the balance between judicial self-governance and the rights of individual judges. The outcome of this case could have lasting implications for how internal judicial disciplinary actions are reviewed and challenged in the future.