Loading...
A lawsuit filed by U.S. Circuit Judge Pauline Newman of the Federal Circuit to halt a probe into her competency has led to an unprecedented legal showdown over judicial oversight. The lawsuit, which was filed in Washington, D.C., federal court, accuses the appeals court’s chief judge, Kimberly Moore, and two other colleagues of violating Newman’s constitutional rights and unlawfully sidelining her from the court’s business.
Newman’s lawsuit has set up an unprecedented situation where a district court must exercise authority over a judicial investigation of a sitting federal judge, with few, if any, parallels in recent history. According to legal experts, the situation is uncharted waters for everyone.
The lawsuit seeks to halt the investigation or transfer the probe to a different court. Newman denied having any physical or mental impairment that affected her performance and claimed that Moore has improperly prevented her from hearing new cases.
Newman’s attorney at the nonprofit New Civil Liberties Alliance, Greg Dolin, argued that judges with lifetime appointments should remain in their roles until they “retire, die or are impeached.” Legal experts said that Newman may have a strong case in which she was treated unfairly during the probe, but getting an outside court to intervene will be challenging.
Don’t miss out on valuable salary information! Check out LawCrossing’s salary surveys today.
A 1980 law governs the process for investigating complaints of judicial misconduct or disability, including how sanctions can be appealed. However, it does not contemplate how or whether ongoing investigations can be stopped in their tracks.
Get JD Journal in Your Mail
Subscribe to our FREE daily news alerts and get the latest updates on the most happening events in the legal, business, and celebrity world. You also get your daily dose of humor and entertainment!!
The closest comparison legal experts cited is the case of late U.S. District Judge John McBryde of the Northern District of Texas, who challenged a year-long suspension for inappropriate behavior. The D.C. Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled in 2001 that McBryde’s appeal was moot since his suspension had expired by the time the case reached the court. But it also said it lacked authority to consider constitutional challenges to findings of misconduct.
It is also unclear whether another court can transfer Newman’s competency probe out of the Federal Circuit. According to Newman’s complaint, Moore has already refused to transfer the investigation, leaving her colleagues in charge of it. In past cases, chief appeals court judges have asked U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts to move probes to another court to preserve neutrality.
Legal experts said that Newman’s lawsuit presents an unprecedented situation for the judiciary, with few guideposts for the court hearing the case. University of Pittsburgh professor Arthur Hellman, who studies the federal judiciary, said, “nothing even remotely like this has happened” since Congress implemented a process for investigating complaints against judges more than 40 years ago.
At least two other U.S. judges have sued to contest sanctions against them, but neither case involved an active investigation, and both were rendered moot before key legal questions were resolved.
Newman, 95, is under investigation after a three-judge committee determined that she may suffer a disability that interferes with her responsibilities as a judge and after she refused a medical evaluation, according to Federal Circuit orders released last month.
The case has sparked a debate over the limits of judicial authority and the importance of judicial independence. Some legal experts argue that Newman’s lawsuit raises serious questions about the potential politicization of the judiciary and the importance of protecting judges from undue influence.
Others have expressed concern that the lawsuit could undermine public confidence in the judiciary and lead to calls for greater oversight and accountability. The outcome of the case is likely to have far-reaching implications for the future of the judiciary and the balance of power between the branches of government.
