Judge Pauline Newman, 98, has asked the Supreme Court to intervene after being sidelined for about three years amid concerns over her competency. Newman, a long-serving member of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, wants to resume hearing cases.
Appointed in 1984, Newman became a prominent figure in the small community that follows patent law. Former colleague Paul Michel praised her intellect and work ethic but noted she writes opinions slowly and dissents often—traits that have caused friction as the court’s outlook on patents has shifted.
In March 2023, when Newman was 95, the court launched an inquiry into her fitness to serve. The court sought to have her examined by experts it selected; Newman declined and provided assessments from doctors she chose, who cleared her. Her lawyer, John Vecchione of the New Civil Liberties Alliance, says allegations that she cannot perform judicial duties are baseless and that her prolonged removal is unusual compared with the handling of other judicial misconduct cases.
No court has declared Newman incompetent. The dispute has centered on procedural questions, particularly whether she has been afforded due process. Newman and her supporters argue she is being pressured out for writing dissenting opinions; in a video produced by her legal team, she described the case as a matter of principle and resistance to colleagues who would “bully and intimidate” a dissenting judge.
Newman recently petitioned the Supreme Court to review claims that she was denied due process. The high court accepts only a small fraction of petitions, so review is uncertain.
An internal judicial-conduct committee rejected her due-process claims in a March decision, noting Newman still has an office, a law clerk, and receives pay and benefits, and concluding she had not been deprived of a property interest in her position. The committee said it expects Newman to undergo further medical evaluation. The Federal Circuit and the Justice Department declined to comment.
The case spotlights broader questions about aging on the federal bench. The average federal judge is 69, and more than 30% are 75 or older. Political scientist Ryan Black has found that older judges tend to rely more on clerks and show measurable declines in certain performance metrics, suggesting the need for more support or policies to address aging. Michel, who retired from the bench, said many professions impose mandatory retirement ages and suggested the judiciary might warrant similar rules.
Whether judges should be treated differently because of lifetime tenure and judicial independence is a key question underlying Newman’s appeal to the Supreme Court.
