Federal Judge Seeks Supreme Court Review After "Stealth Impeachment" by Colleagues

A federal judge is petitioning the Supreme Court to determine if she has the right to challenge her removal from active service by fellow judges. Judge Pauline Newman of the Federal Circuit has been sidelined for three years by her colleagues, who cited the Judicial Councils Reform and Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals previously ruled that this act bars any judicial review of such actions. Judge Newman's petition argues that this administrative removal, effectively a "stealth impeachment," undermines judicial independence and lifetime tenure, impacting every federal judge and litigant.

The petition highlights that Judge Newman, known as the court's "Great Dissenter," has undergone and passed multiple mental fitness evaluations, demonstrating the mental acuity of someone decades younger. Despite this, she remains suspended, marking the longest suspension of any federal judge in history. Her petition contends that her colleagues acted as complainant, witnesses, and judges in her case, refusing to transfer the matter to another circuit for an impartial investigation. This situation, she argues, sets a dangerous precedent where internal court politics could sideline a Senate-confirmed judge, threatening the independence of the entire judiciary.

Judge Newman's removal has also coincided with a significant drop in the Federal Circuit's dissent rate, from 12% to 4%, suggesting a chilling effect on other judges. Her petition does not seek a ruling on the merits of her claims but rather asks the Supreme Court to affirm her right to have a federal court consider her constitutional and statutory challenges to her removal. The case raises crucial questions about the balance of power within the judiciary and the constitutional protections afforded to Article III judges.