The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear an appeal from U.S. Circuit Judge Pauline Newman, effectively upholding her unconstitutional suspension from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Newman has been enduring this suspension for several years, imposed by her colleagues on the basis of her supposed lack of mental competency, which is widely considered absurd. Despite her advanced age of 99, Newman remains sharp and capable, able to work circles around her junior colleagues.
The suspension bars Newman from hearing any cases and amounts to an unconstitutional impeachment and removal from office. The Supreme Court's decision sets a dangerous precedent by declining to take up the appeal.
Newman has served on the Federal Circuit since 1984 and has been a respected judge throughout her career. However, several years ago, she suffered some brief fainting spells, which led Federal Circuit Chief Judge Kimberly Moore to convene a panel of fellow Federal Circuit judges to determine whether Newman was competent to serve. The problem with this scheme is plain: separate from the Constitution granting lifetime tenure to federal judges to ensure their independence and granting Congress the sole power of impeachment, these judges had knowledge of all relevant facts ahead of time.
Newman submitted to examinations by three independent experts who evaluated her separately, and all determined her to be of sound mind and fully capable of performing her judicial duties. Yet, this was insufficient for Moore, who has effectively accomplished an impeachment and removal of Newman.
Chief judges hold no such power under the Constitution, yet Moore has used her position to suspend Newman indefinitely, effectively barring her from performing the most essential task of a federal judge: hearing cases. The House is the sole body vested with the power to impeach judges, and the Senate is the sole body vested with the power to remove judges after a trial.
The Supreme Court's decision to decline the appeal sets a disturbing precedent, allowing any chief judge to handpick a panel to rubber-stamp a determination of mental deficiency and force out another judge. There is no limiting principle governing what was done to Newman, and if Moore can do it to her, any chief judge can do the same to any other judge.
The situation is particularly egregious when compared to other judges who have been accused of misconduct. U.S. District Judge Eleanor Ross of Georgia, for instance, was accused of using her chambers for personal matters, but received only a private reprimand. Newman, on the other hand, has never done anything to dishonor the judiciary and finds herself permanently barred from fulfilling her primary responsibility: deciding cases.
The Supreme Court's decision has grave consequences for many judges, and many years, to come. It is a shameful display of the judiciary's disarray and a clear failure to protect the rights of judges.
