Supreme Court's Inaction on Judge Newman's Appeal Sets 'Dangerous Precedent,' Critics Argue

The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear an appeal from Federal Circuit Judge Pauline Newman, who has been suspended from hearing cases for several years. Critics argue that this decision sets a dangerous precedent and amounts to an unconstitutional removal from office.

Newman, 99, has been suspended from her judicial duties by her colleagues on the Federal Circuit based on concerns about her mental competency. This suspension bars her from hearing cases, a move described by critics as equivalent to impeachment and removal, powers constitutionally vested solely in Congress.

Despite the suspension, three independent experts evaluated Newman and determined her to be of sound mind and fully capable of performing her judicial duties. Nevertheless, the Federal Circuit Chief Judge Kimberly Moore and a panel of fellow judges have continued Newman's indefinite suspension.

Newman has served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit since 1984. The suspension followed brief fainting spells Newman experienced several years ago. Chief Judge Moore then convened a panel of Federal Circuit judges, including herself, to assess Newman's competency. Critics contend that this panel was inherently biased, as the judges involved observed Newman regularly in the same building and could be considered witnesses to the alleged facts, thus creating a conflict of interest.

In contrast to Newman's situation, the article notes the case of U.S. District Judge Eleanor Ross, who allegedly engaged in sexual misconduct in her chambers. Ross reportedly received only a private reprimand and continues to hear cases, a situation critics highlight as a disparity in judicial accountability.

The U.S. Constitution grants federal judges lifetime tenure to ensure judicial independence and vests the power of impeachment and removal exclusively with Congress. Critics argue that Chief Judge Moore's actions have effectively circumvented these constitutional provisions, creating a situation where chief judges could potentially force out other judges through a similar process, regardless of congressional action.