DC Court Holds Oral Argument in Judge Newman's Suit Against Fitness Investigation

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia held oral argument on Jan. 25 in Judge Pauline Newman's suit against three of her colleagues' fitness investigation on the 96-year-old judge. In a Jan. 30 brief filed after the oral argument, the three U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit judges -- Kimberly Moore, Richard Taranto and Sharon Prost -- clarified that they didn't intend to suggest that the appellate court's Judicial Council would need to take action for Newman's suspension to lapse. Instead, the judges meant to confirm that the council would need to "take some action" for the "suspension to continue beyond the one-year period" (The Hon. Pauline Newman v. The Hon. Kimberly Moore, D.D.C. # 23-01334).

In September 2023, the Judicial Council decided to suspend Newman from hearing any new cases for one year due to her infringement of the investigation on her fitness to continue serving on the bench (see 2309200024). During the oral argument, the court said that if Newman has still failed to comply with the investigation by the end of her suspension, the Judicial Council would have to "upset the current status quo somehow in order for the suspension to lapse."

The three judges said the "Judicial Council would have to take some action." In their brief, the judges said they meant to confirm that the council would have to take new action to continue the suspension. "This is consistent with the discussion elsewhere in the hearing, including immediately preceding the cited exchange," the brief said.

Newman, in her own brief, said that the council fully intends to take action to continue the suspension beyond the one-year period. While some "pro forma action may need to be taken by Defendants to formally extend the suspension, Defendants have admitted that they fully intend to do so," as stated in their September 2023 order, the brief said.

Whether or not additional formal votes are needed or will be taken, the three judges' actions and statements to the court "confirm that they do not expect or intend to permit Judge Newman to resume her judicial duties at any point." This makes it a "long-term disqualification from cases," which in practical effect, affects removal of the judge in a way that is unconstitutional, Newman said.