I have previously blogged about the "stealth impeachment" of Judge Pauline Newman of the Federal Circuit. Judge Newman presented serious constitutional questions to the D.C. Circuit about her supposedly "temporary" suspension from active service on her court. Today, the D.C. Circuit rejected Judge Newman's challenges. The panel ruled that, under earlier Circuit precedent, it was barred from reviewing her constitutional arguments. The panel essentially remitted Judge Newman to the Judicial Conference to pursue the issues, while also suggesting some possible new judicial avenues Judge Newman might consider.
Some quick background: Judge Newman has been "temporarily" suspended by the Federal Circuit's Judicial Council due to her alleged failure to cooperate with a Special Committee of the Circuit. The Committee was investigating Judge Newman's alleged declining mental capacities. Judge Newman sought federal judicial review of whether her indefinite suspension violated her constitutional rights. But a judge on the D.C. District Court dismissed many of her claims as not subject to judicial review and rejected her facial constitutional challenges to the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act. She appealed to the D.C. Circuit.
In December, I joined former judges Janice Rogers Brown, Paul R. Michel, Randall R. Rader, Thomas L. Vanaskie, and Susan G. Braden in an amicus brief (written by experienced appellate lawyer Richard Samp) urging the D.C. Circuit to direct that Judge Newman's claims be reviewed on their merits. And Judge Newman herself weighed in with a powerful reply to the Judicial Council's position that it can simply suspend her from her judicial duties under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act.
