The ongoing dispute involving 96-year-old Judge Pauline Newman and a special committee of three Federal Circuit judges has taken a new turn. The committee, which includes Chief Judge Kimberly A. Moore and Judges Sharon Prost and Richard G. Taranto of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, failed to reach a resolution with Judge Newman through mediation. This information was revealed in a status report filed on Friday.
The origins of the conflict can be traced back to March when concerns were raised by multiple judges about Judge Newman’s performance on the court. Subsequently, a fitness and misconduct investigation was initiated. The committee ultimately voted to sanction Judge Newman due to her refusal to cooperate with the investigation. The findings of the committee, which were disclosed earlier this month, led to a unanimous recommendation for a suspension of one year or until she cooperates with the probe. Since the commencement of the investigation, Judge Newman has not been assigned any new cases.
In light of the unsuccessful mediation attempt, Judge Newman and the committee jointly approached the US District Court for the District of Columbia to request a resumption of the briefing on Judge Newman’s efforts to block her suspension from new case assignments. The parties proposed a briefing schedule that involves submissions and responses over the coming months.
See also: Privacy Upheld as 96-Year-Old Judge’s Fitness Hearing Remains Closed to Public
The significance of Judge Newman’s cardiac health and a neurologist’s evaluation cannot be overlooked. These aspects played a central role in a hearing conducted in July to assess her compliance with the probe. A redacted transcript of this hearing, which was released recently despite Judge Newman’s objections, highlighted the importance of these medical factors in the proceedings.
Advance your legal career and achieve your professional goals – sign up for LawCrossing now.
Adding a layer to the unfolding situation, a letter to the editor was published in the Wall Street Journal this week. The letter by Fifth Circuit Judge Edith H. Jones lauded Judge Newman as a “brilliant, capable jurist” and criticized the ongoing probe conducted by the special committee as “inexplicable.”
Furthermore, the perspective of the neurologist involved in the case came to the forefront. Dr. Ted Rothstein, from George Washington University’s School of Medicine & Health Sciences, revealed that the extensive 111-page report released on August 4 contained a misleading description of his examination. He expressed his concerns, referring to a line in the report that stated Judge Newman had “failed 80% of the memory related questions” during the examination. Dr. Rothstein found this description to be a distortion and wholly inappropriate.
Representation in this legal matter has been divided. The New Civil Liberties Alliance is representing Judge Newman, while the Justice Department is acting on behalf of the Federal Circuit special committee and its individual members.
With the deadline for Judge Newman’s response to the committee’s report set for August 31, the situation is bound to further evolve. The Federal Circuit’s full Judicial Council is expected to issue a decision based on the committee’s recommendation shortly thereafter. As the legal proceedings continue, the implications for Judge Newman’s status and the investigation’s outcome remain uncertain.
Don’t be a silent ninja! Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.