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.