The Federal Circuit has called on the D.C. Circuit to stand firm and decline Judge Pauline Newman’s bid to revisit a ruling that upheld the dismissal of her lawsuit challenging her suspension — a case that has placed judicial independence, internal discipline, and constitutional boundaries under a national spotlight.

In a filing Monday, the court told its D.C. counterpart that Judge Newman’s request for an en banc rehearing should be denied, arguing that long-standing precedent gives the judiciary the authority to resolve its internal disputes without outside interference.

Federal Circuit Says Judicial Self-Governance Must Stand

McBryde Precedent Takes Center Stage

Judge Newman, now 98 years old and suspended for more than two years, argued in September that the D.C. Circuit should overturn its 2001 McBryde decision, which bars individual judges from suing their colleagues over disciplinary actions taken under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act.

But the Federal Circuit fired back, insisting that McBryde is consistent with Congress’s intent and with D.C. Circuit precedent.

“Plaintiff provides no rationale to overcome the strong stare decisis that attaches to statutory-interpretation precedents,” the Federal Circuit said, adding that “Plaintiff provides no sound basis to revisit McBryde.”

The court emphasized that the statute expressly channels review of judicial-council actions to the Judicial Conference of the United States, not federal district courts.

Newman’s Battle: Medical Exams, Suspensions, and Separation-of-Powers Fears

Judge Newman was suspended after refusing to submit to a medical evaluation that her Federal Circuit colleagues deemed necessary to assess her fitness to serve. Her suspension was renewed in late August for another year.

She has challenged the action through every possible avenue — district court, appeals courts, and the Judicial Conference — but her arguments have repeatedly collided with the limits imposed by McBryde.

Newman contends the Judicial Council’s actions effectively removed her from office, something she argues should be reserved for impeachment. She also maintains that any inquiry into her conduct should have been handled by a different circuit to avoid conflicts of interest.

D.C. Circuit Already Expressed Deep Discomfort

Panel Suggested Its Hands Were Tied

The D.C. Circuit panel that rejected her suit in August signaled misgivings, noting Judge Newman may lack any meaningful judicial forum to challenge her suspension.

The panel said she raised “substantial arguments that … threaten the principle of judicial independence and may violate the separation of powers,” adding that preventing her from presenting her case to a neutral tribunal could raise due process concerns.

Even so, the court concluded that McBryde bound its hands.

“We await the D.C. Circuit’s decision in this matter,” said John J. Vecchione of the New Civil Liberties Alliance, counsel for Judge Newman.

Representation

• Judge Newman is represented by John J. Vecchione, Mark Chenoweth, and Andrew Morris of the New Civil Liberties Alliance.

• Federal Circuit judges are represented by Melissa N. Patterson, Mark R. Freeman, and Maxwell A. Baldi of the U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Division.

• The DOJ did not immediately respond to a request for comment.