US Supreme Court Declines Newman Appeal

The US Supreme Court has declined to hear Judge Pauline Newman’s challenge to her suspension from the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, leaving intact a lower-court ruling that sharply limits judicial review of internal federal court discipline.

The justices denied the petition in Newman v Moore, No. 25-1101, on June 15 without explanation. The 98-year-old patent jurist had asked the Court to review whether the Judicial Council of the Federal Circuit exceeded its statutory and constitutional authority by preventing her from receiving new case assignments during an investigation into her fitness to serve.

Newman, who was appointed to the Federal Circuit in 1984, argued that the continuing suspension denied her due process and operated as a removal from judicial office without the impeachment process assigned to Congress. The respondents, including Chief Judge Kimberly Moore, maintained that the council acted under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act and that the statutory review route runs through the Judicial Conference of the United States rather than the federal courts.

The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected Newman’s challenge in August 2025. Relying on McBryde v Committee to Review Circuit Council Conduct and Disability Orders, the panel held that binding precedent prevented it from considering most statutory and as-applied constitutional objections to judicial council orders.

That ruling followed decisions by the US District Court for the District of Columbia, where Judge Christopher Cooper dismissed the remaining claims in Newman’s lawsuit.

The Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability has separately reviewed the disciplinary process, while the Federal Circuit’s Judicial Council has renewed the restriction on Newman’s case assignments. The Supreme Court’s denial therefore leaves the existing institutional framework untouched and provides no merits ruling on Newman’s claims concerning lifetime tenure, judicial independence or the separation of powers.

Newman is represented by the New Civil Liberties Alliance and Jonathan F. Mitchell of Mitchell Law PLLC, with Andrew J. Morris, John J. Vecchione and Mark S. Chenoweth also listed on the Supreme Court petition. Chief Judge Moore and the other respondents were represented by US Solicitor General D. John Sauer and the Department of Justice. Following the denial, NCLA said it would continue pursuing available avenues for Newman’s reinstatement.

The outcome confirms the practical force of statutory limits on external review of federal judicial discipline, with direct implications for appellate practitioners, court administrators and law firm litigation teams. It also leaves unresolved how far a judicial council may restrict an Article III judge’s duties before a temporary suspension begins to resemble functional removal.

Future disputes are likely to focus on the statutory review process, the distinction between facial and as-applied constitutional claims, and whether Congress should clarify the safeguards governing prolonged suspensions of federal judges.