Pauline Newman, a 98-year-old federal appeals judge suspended by her colleagues over concerns about her mental fitness, has asked the Supreme Court to step into her fight to resume hearing cases, her lawyers said Thursday.
Three years ago, Newman’s fellow judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit prevented her from taking on new cases indefinitely. Newman has sued them, arguing it’s unconstitutional.
The years-long battle has given a glimpse into how the judicial system grapples with issues of age on the bench, at a time when questions about elected officials’ mental fitness is looming large in Washington.
Newman rejects the notion she is unfit to serve, and she wants the Supreme Court to reverse a ruling that barred judicial review of her suspension.
“Other judges who are watching what is happening to Judge Newman can only wonder if a similar fate will befall them if they fail to stay on the good side of their chief judge,” her petition reads.
It has not yet been docketed. The Hill received a copy from Newman’s lawyers.
The justices will review the request at a closed-door conference in the upcoming months. The high court chooses what cases it hears, and it turns away the vast majority without comment.
Then-President Reagan nominated Newman to the newly created Federal Circuit in 1984. It hears appeals on specialty topics, such as intellectual property and government contracts. Newman became especially known for her opinions on patent law, earning her the nickname of the “Great Dissenter.”
The Constitution guarantees federal judges their position and salary for life, unless they’re impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate. So while Newman’s colleagues haven’t outright removed her, they have prevented her from hearing new cases since early 2023.
It has kept her on the sidelines of legal battles at the Federal Circuit ever since, including the blockbuster fight over President Trump’s emergency tariffs. Newman attended last year’s oral arguments in the public gallery’s second row, face-to-face with her colleagues.
“This Court cannot allow the internal politics of a court to sideline a Senate-confirmed judge and threaten the independence of other judges who may fear similar reprisals from their colleagues,” Newman’s attorneys wrote to the Supreme Court.
“All of this needs to be nipped in the bud before any further damage is done to the Constitution’s protections of judicial independence,” they continued.
In spring 2023, Federal Circuit Chief Judge Kimberly Moore began misconduct procedures under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act after unsuccessfully trying to convince Newman to retire.
During investigatory interviews, unnamed employees described Newman’s demeanor as “paranoid,” “agitated” and “bizarre,” court documents show. Among other things, they alleged Newman needs assistance with basic tasks, claims the court has bugged her phones and repeatedly seems to have trouble retaining information.
Newman’s colleagues suspended her from hearing new cases as she refused to undergo medical examinations. They’ve continued to extend the suspension, last doing so in August.
Newman has long rejected the notion she is unfit to serve. She points to three mental tests that were performed by three different doctors.
She launched the formal lawsuit against her fellow judges soon after being suspended. Newman argues her suspension is unconstitutional and that her due process rights were violated, because her colleagues should’ve transferred the matter to another court.
Last summer, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit found its binding precedent barred review of her claims. However, the opinion stressed it doesn’t mean her arguments are meritless.
“Judge Newman has posed important and serious questions about whether these Judicial Conduct and Disability Act proceedings comport with constitutional due process principles and whether her ongoing suspension comports with the structure of our Constitution,” the court wrote at the time.
The D.C. Circuit’s precedent is not binding at the Supreme Court. Newman’s lawyers hope the justices will now spurn it.
Newman is represented by the New Civil Liberties Alliance, a libertarian public-interest firm, and prominent conservative attorney Jonathan Mitchell. Mitchell has argued more than a half-dozen cases before the justices, including when he represented Trump in his successful appeal of Colorado’s decision to kick him off its 2024 presidential ballot.
Copyright 2026 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
For the latest news, weather, sports, and streaming video, head to The Hill.
