DC Court Rejects CAFC Judge Newman's Claims Against Colleagues' Fitness Investigation
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on July 9 dismissed the remaining claims U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Judge Pauline Newman brought against three of her colleagues for their investigation into her fitness to continue serving on the bench (Hon. Pauline Newman v. Hon. Kimberly Moore, D.D.C. # 23-01334).
Judge Christopher Cooper rejected four of Newman's challenges to the constitutionality of the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act -- the law under which CAFC Judges Kimberly Moore, Sharon Prost and Richard Taranto investigated Newman. In a February decision, Cooper rejected a host of claims from Newman for lack of jurisdiction or failure to state a claim, denying the 96-year-old judge an injunction against the CAFC Judicial Councils' one-year ban on Newman hearing new cases at the court (see 2402120057). In that decision, the D.C. district court judge allowed four of the constitutional claims to proceed.
Two of the claims alleged that the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act violates the Fourth Amendment's protections against illegal searches and seizures, while the other two argued that parts of the act are "unconstitutionally vague." Cooper rejected all four.
The CAFC Judicial Council imposed the one-year ban on new cases for Newman in September 2023 after finding that she obstructed the investigation into her fitness to continue serving on the bench (see 2309200024). As part of the investigation, Newman was tasked with subjecting herself to a medical examination, but she refused to comply. The council found that the obstruction, among other things, could stand as a basis for the suspension. This decision was sustained by the U.S. Judicial Conference in February (see 2402070047).