FOLLOW US

Briefing Notes

• 98-year-old Judge Pauline Newman suspended yet again despite clean bills of health from her own doctors
• Judicial Council relies on staff gripes and selective experts, dismissing contrary medical evidence as if it never existed
• Critics call it “ersatz impeachment” — colleagues appear to be pushing Newman out for good, without Congress or due process

By SAMUEL A. LOPEZ
USA HERALD (August 30, 2025)

Federal Circuit Judge Pauline Newman, at 98 years old, has become the target of one of the most aggressive and questionable campaigns ever waged against an Article III judge. In a unanimous ruling on Friday, her colleagues once again extended her suspension for another year, citing her refusal to submit to medical testing by their handpicked doctors.

Let me be clear: this isn’t about protecting the public. It’s about power. ⚠️

The Judicial Council insists that Judge Newman is guilty of “misconduct” for refusing to cooperate with their demand that she undergo neuropsychological testing by experts they alone select. They rely on the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 353–354, and claim that suspension is the only way to enforce their order.

But here’s the truth that the Council would rather you ignore: Judge Newman has already been examined by three independent doctors of her choosing, and every one of them cleared her as fit to serve. Those evaluations didn’t deliver the “smoking gun” her colleagues wanted, so they simply moved the goalposts, demanding yet more tests until they get the answer they prefer. That’s not due process — that’s harassment.

🧩 The Council’s Paper-Thin Justification

The Council’s latest order tries to sound authoritative, citing employee affidavits, internal staff complaints, and even stray notations in Newman’s medical records about “forgetfulness.” But none of this proves she is unfit to serve. None of it comes from litigants. None of it comes from attorneys who appear before her.

Think about that. Not one lawyer has stepped forward to say, “Judge Newman botched my case because she couldn’t understand it.” Instead, the complaints come from IT staff and clerks annoyed that Newman struggled with a new multi-factor authentication system. In other words, workplace gripes have been inflated into grounds for suspending a federal judge.

That isn’t judicial discipline. It’s a vendetta dressed up as procedure.

⚖️ Judicial Independence Under Siege

The Constitution says that federal judges hold office during “good Behaviour” and can only be removed through impeachment. Congress designed impeachment to protect the public from corruption and incapacity, but also to shield judges from exactly this sort of backroom takedown by their peers.

Yet the Judicial Council has now created an end-run around that safeguard. By branding Newman’s refusal to comply with their invasive demands as “continuing misconduct,” they can keep renewing her suspension indefinitely. As Judge Newman herself put it, this is nothing less than “ersatz impeachment” — an unconstitutional attempt to force her out of office without Congress ever casting a vote.

Even the D.C. Circuit recently admitted that this suspension “threatens the principle of judicial independence and may violate the separation of powers.” That’s not my opinion — that’s a federal appeals court raising a red flag.

🔥 A Witch Hunt in Robes

I’ve worked inside the legal system for over two decades. I’ve seen good judges and bad ones. And I’ve seen how power gets abused when insiders decide they want someone gone.

What’s happening to Judge Newman looks less like a genuine inquiry into fitness and more like a toxic workplace campaign fueled by colleagues who want her seat vacated. She was appointed by Ronald Reagan, and let’s not forget, she’s known for her strong conservative-leaning views on patents and law. Does that make her a target in a court where her ideology is increasingly out of step with her peers? It’s a fair question.

When I read that Newman’s own expert, Dr. Rothstein, admitted he suggested she undergo neuropsychological testing, I thought: fine, she can take the test. But why should she be forced to take it from doctors chosen by the very colleagues who are trying to end her career? That’s like putting your fate in the hands of your accusers. It’s Kafkaesque.

And let’s be honest — even if she took their test and passed with flying colors, do you really believe they’d welcome her back? Or would they just move the goalposts again?

👁️ Inside Baseball, Not Public Harm

The most striking part of this case is what’s missing: any evidence that the public or the judiciary has been harmed by Judge Newman’s service.

The Council cites staff emails, irritation over her memory of IT systems, and alleged “anger” in the workplace. But no litigant has cried foul. No ruling has been reversed for incoherence. No attorney has gone on record saying Newman can’t do her job.

This is not about justice. It’s about insiders protecting turf, silencing dissent, and clearing the bench of someone they can’t control.

💡 Why It Matters

Judge Newman’s case isn’t just about one woman. It’s about whether judicial councils can weaponize the JC&D Act to create shadow impeachments, where judges are banished indefinitely based on staff gossip and selective medical demands.

If they can do this to Newman — a judge with decades of service, a sterling reputation, and three doctors backing her up — they can do it to anyone. Judicial independence is not a luxury; it’s the bedrock of the rule of law.

And right now, that foundation is cracking under the weight of politics, personal vendettas, and unchecked judicial overreach.

The case, In re Complaint No. 23-90015 before the Judicial Council and Newman v. Moore et al., No. 24-5173 in the D.C. Circuit, is far from over. But the longer this saga drags on, the clearer it becomes: what’s happening to Judge Newman isn’t justice. It’s persecution.