Judge Pauline Newman is being investigated by the Special Committee to determine whether Judge Pauline Newman is still qualified to serve on the U.S. The U.S. was advised by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC).
The Special Committee investigating Judge Pauline Newman’s suitability for CAFC dismissed the U.S. District Court’s argument that the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 was unconstitutional. (Photo: Bloomberg Law News)
According to IPWatchdog, the District Court for the District of Columbia on September 1 her claim that the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 was unconstitutional should be dismissed because the federal judiciary was designed to police itself.
No one disputes Judge Pauline Newman’s numerous contributions to the law, but the CAFC judges’ September 1 motion to dismiss stated that “her legal claims here are jurisdictionally deficient and meritless.”
On May 10, 2023, Judge Pauline Newman submitted a complaint to the district court. In July, she and the CAFC panel agreed to try to resolve the conflict through mediation, but they were unsuccessful.
According to the motion to dismiss, Judge Pauline Newman’s claims are initially barred by the judicial review bar. However, even if the court decides to consider the claims, the argument that the Act is unconstitutional is said to be without merit.
READ ALSO: US Future Weapons: A Glimpse Into The US Military’s Upcoming Arsenal Of 15 Cutting-Edge Weapons
Circuit Judge Pauline Newman was “unlawfully and unilaterally removed from all future sittings of the Court,” according to Newman’s complaint against CAFC Chief Judge Kimberly Moore.
Judge Pauline Newman must file her appeal with a court that has appellate jurisdiction over the Federal Circuit, according to the motion. The motion to dismiss stated that “This Court has no original jurisdiction to review the actions of its own circuit’s judicial council, let alone the Federal Circuit’s.” Judge Stephen Chandler, for instance, appealed directly to the United States in 1966. Supreme Court to request a stay of a judgment made by the Tenth Circuit Judicial Council.
The D.C. Circuit has acknowledged that judicial discipline does not constitute improper removal from office and has found no “unconstitutional risk of bias” through the Act’s combination of investigative and adjudicative functions. The motion also argues that the Act has always allowed a judicial council to suspend case assignments to a particular judge and that Newman’s delay in filing the preliminary injunction motion undermines this delay.
The CAFC judges argue against the dismissal of Judge Pauline Newman’s motion to enjoin the suspension of new case assignments, citing the judge’s right to hear specific cases and the public interest’s potential interference with the Federal Circuit’s work, which would further harm the court’s judges, litigants, and counsel.
The CAFC motion argues that a Judicial Council decision is imminent and should be denied. It also reiterates concerns about Judge Pauline Newman’s fitness to serve and claims Congress intended the federal judiciary to be self-policing, excluding removal of judges or pay reductions outside impeachment.
READ ALSO: UW Sexual Assault Victim Attacked Brutally On Sunday, Madison Police Report
