A recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court has sparked controversy after they declined to hear an appeal from U.S. Circuit Judge Pauline Newman. The appeal was related to her suspension from hearing cases, which was imposed by her colleagues on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The suspension was due to concerns over her mental competency, a claim that many who know her find absurd.
Newman, who has served on the Federal Circuit since 1984, was suspended several years ago after suffering brief fainting spells. A panel of fellow Federal Circuit judges, convened by Chief Judge Kimberly Moore, determined that she was not competent to serve. However, this process has been widely criticized as unconstitutional, with the judges on the panel being potential fact witnesses and having observed Newman regularly.
The panel's decision to suspend Newman was made despite three independent experts finding her to be of sound mind and fully capable of performing her judicial duties. The suspension has been indefinite, with Moore trying to downplay the severity of the situation by pointing out that Newman was allowed to attend court events. However, this has done little to alleviate concerns over the mistreatment of Newman.
The situation has raised concerns over the limits of a chief judge's power and the potential for abuse. Under the Constitution, the House has the sole power to impeach judges, while the Senate has the sole power to remove them after a trial. However, Moore's actions have effectively resulted in Newman's impeachment and removal from office, without following the constitutional process.
This case has significant implications for the judiciary, as it sets a precedent for chief judges to potentially target other judges. U.S. Circuit Judge Laurence VanDyke, a frequent dissenting voice on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, has raised concerns that a similar process could be used against him. The lack of a limiting principle in this case could lead to a situation where any chief judge can use this process to remove judges they disagree with.
The contrast between Newman's treatment and that of other judges who have committed serious misconduct has also been highlighted. U.S. District Judge Eleanor Ross, who allegedly engaged in misconduct, received a private reprimand and continues to hear cases. In contrast, Newman has been barred from fulfilling her primary responsibility as a judge, despite having done nothing to dishonor the judiciary.
The Supreme Court's decision to decline Newman's appeal has been widely criticized, with many seeing it as a missed opportunity to address the issue. The consequences of this decision could be far-reaching, potentially leading to a judiciary in disarray and undermining the constitutional process for impeaching and removing judges.
