CAFC Judicial Council Bars Newman From Being Assigned Cases for 1 Year
The Judicial Council of the Federal Circuit in a Sept. 20 order affirmed a three-judge panel's suggestion that Judge Pauline Newman shouldn't be assigned new cases for one year due to her efforts to impede the probe into her fitness to continue serving on the bench. The council said the evidence "amply justified" an order subjecting Newman to a medical examination and that her refusal to comply, among other things, thwarted the council's ability to decide whether she "has a disability that renders her unable to perform the duties of her important office."
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
The 96-year old Newman argued that the matter should be sent to another circuit, justifying her refusal to submit to the examination. The council said this claim "fails to recognize that transfer is appropriate only in 'exceptional circumstances,'" which isn't applicable here.
Newman added that the council members have "personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts" and are biased as a result. The council clarified that the proceeding was narrowed to solely look at Newman's negative impact on the investigation and not at any disability, broadly speaking, and that as a result, "the argument sweeps too broadly." No judge is a witness in the case and the council is not relying on other judges' experience in making the ruling.
The embattled judge also failed to cite any example of a disability proceeding involving a circuit judge being transferred, nor has she shown "exceptional circumstances" that warrant transfer, the report said. Newman also contested the proceeding on the grounds that she was never given a chance to contest the information submitted by court staff, though the council said that this simply wasn't the case.
She additionally attempted to rebut the council's findings by saying that the two medical reports she submitted from her providers stand as evidence to her fitness. However, the judicial council said this was "not remotely" adequate, pointing out the flaws in both reports. The council said that the one-year suspension "is not a fitting capstone to Judge Newman's exemplary and storied career," adding that it would "prefer a different outcome" but that its "solemn obligation" isn't to "simply look the other way" when "it appears that a judge of this Court is no longer capable of performing the duties of her judicial office."
The three-person panel made up of Judges Kimberly Moore, Sharon Prost and Richard Taranto issued their findings in August, suggesting the one-year ban (see 2308040021). The panel echoed the concerns that have surrounded Newman since the probe's inception, including that the judge is untimely in writing opinions and considering cases. Newman also appears to suffer from "serious mental problems, including memory loss, lack of comprehension, confusion, and an inability to perform basic tasks that she previously was able to perform with ease," the panel said.