Federal judge Pauline Newman suspended amid fitness concerns, investigation continues

The Supreme Court’s refusal to hear Pauline Newman’s appeal left in place a rare and consequential sanction against a sitting federal judge: a one-year suspension from receiving new case assignments, renewed once already amid concerns about her fitness to serve. The dispute has become a test of how far the judiciary can go to police one of its own when age, health and accountability collide.

Newman, 98, has served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit since 1984. The case began after the Federal Circuit’s chief judge identified a judicial complaint on March 24, 2023, pointing to a heart attack and coronary stent surgery in the summer of 2021, plus a fainting episode after oral argument on May 3, 2022. The court also cited extensive delays in her case processing and concerns about possible cognitive impairment.

The Federal Circuit Judicial Council said Newman refused to undergo medical examinations, produce medical records or participate in the investigation. In a memorandum of decision, the Judicial Conduct and Disability Committee concluded that her refusal, without good cause shown, amounted to misconduct under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act. The committee denied Newman’s petition for review on February 7, 2024, rejecting her argument that the matter should have been transferred to another circuit and that the sanction violated the act and the governing rules.

The council first suspended Newman from hearing new cases for one year in 2023, then renewed that suspension in September 2024. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld dismissal of her lawsuit on August 22, 2025, with Judge Gregory Garcia writing that the Judicial Councils Reform and Judicial Conduct and Disability Act authorizes judicial councils to impose temporary case-assignment suspensions and that Newman had refused the requested examinations and records. The Judicial Council also indicated it would decide whether to renew the suspension again in September 2025.

Newman has argued that the sanction is effectively a removal from office, which she says is reserved to Congress through impeachment. Supporters in the D.C. Circuit included the Buckeye Institute, the Manhattan Institute, former Judge Janice Rogers Brown and the Bar Association of the District of Columbia. By declining to intervene on June 15, 2026, the Supreme Court left intact a system that relies on internal judicial discipline rather than impeachment to address doubts about an aging judge’s ability to remain active. For a judiciary that depends on lifetime tenure, the case underscores a difficult question: whether current oversight tools are strong enough when the concern is not misconduct in the ordinary sense, but the capacity to keep serving at all.