FOLLOW US

A District of Columbia federal judge dismissed the lawsuit Federal Circuit Judge Pauline Newman filed against her colleagues over her suspension for refusing to undergo medical tests. The ruling stated that she failed to prove the judicial conduct law in question is unconstitutional.

U.S. District Judge Christopher R. Cooper granted judgment on the pleadings to all active judges of the Federal Circuit's Judicial Council, dismissing Judge Newman's suit regarding her suspension. The suspension was imposed last year amid an investigation into her fitness to remain on the bench. Judge Cooper previously ruled in February that he lacked jurisdiction over Judge Newman's claims related to her suspension. However, he allowed her to pursue claims that the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act, which her colleagues relied on to suspend her, violates the Fourth Amendment and is unconstitutionally vague.

Judge Newman Loses Suit: Key Points

Judge Cooper concluded on Tuesday that Judge Newman could not prevail on these counts either, leading to the dismissal of the case. Judge Newman argued that the law violates the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures, particularly regarding compelled medical examinations of judges and the surrender of their medical records. However, Judge Cooper disagreed with her argument.

"Though some investigative conduct might trigger Fourth Amendment concerns and even constitute violations of an individual's privacy rights, Judge Newman has not shown that every application of the provision offends the Fourth Amendment," Judge Cooper stated.

The judge also rejected Judge Newman's challenge to the law's provision that it applies to judges who cannot discharge their duties due to mental or physical disability. Judge Newman claimed that this language fails to provide adequate notice of what constitutes a disability or when penalties may apply. Judge Cooper held that the law "is not unconstitutionally vague."

Judicial Conduct and Disability Act Upheld

The law only applies to federal judges, and Judge Cooper emphasized that judges are well aware of their duties, as they must swear an oath to "faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon" them before taking office.

"Because the provision is pegged to 'knowable criteria,' it is not impermissibly vague," Judge Cooper wrote. He also concluded that the law "merely sets the outer boundaries" of how an investigation may proceed, addressing Judge Newman's argument that the law does not provide fair notice of when penalties will be imposed.

Legal Representation and Case Information

An attorney for Judge Newman and a representative of the Federal Circuit could not immediately be reached for comment on Tuesday. Judge Newman is represented by Gregory Dolin and John J. Vecchione of the New Civil Liberties Alliance. The Federal Circuit is represented by Michael Andrew Zee and Stephen Ehrlich of the U.S. Department of Justice's Civil Division.