A federal judge who has been sidelined for three years over questions about her competency is asking the Supreme Court to throw her a lifeline. Judge Pauline Newman is 98 years old — and she wants a chance to hear cases again.
Her situation highlights concerns about an aging judiciary, where the average age of federal judges is 69 and lifetime tenure raises difficult questions about retirement.
Newman joined the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in 1984 during the Reagan administration and became a prominent figure in the small community that follows patent law. Former colleague Paul Michel said Newman is largely unchanged, though the court has shifted and grown more skeptical of patents.
“She’s extremely bright, very hardworking, quite independent,” Michel said. “She’s slow in writing opinions and that rankles some judges, and she dissents more often than about any other judge, and that also rankles some judges.”
Those tensions erupted in March 2023, when the court’s chief judge opened an inquiry into Newman’s fitness to serve. Newman was 95 at the time. The Federal Circuit sought to have her examined by experts it selected, but Newman declined and insisted on choosing her own doctors; those physicians gave her a clean bill of health.
“The idea that she’s not capable of doing her judicial duties is nonsense,” said her attorney John Vecchione, senior litigation counsel at the New Civil Liberties Alliance. No court has found Newman incompetent. The question has been put on hold while lawyers dispute whether she received due process. Vecchione noted that others accused of misconduct — including sexual harassment, expense fraud, or alcoholism — have not been kept off the bench as long as Newman, whom he says has done nothing wrong.
Newman has continued to speak at conferences, attend legal events, and write during her suspension. In a recent video produced by her legal team, she said she is fighting on principle. “I thought that it was ridiculous and I should not succumb or set a pattern of judicial colleagues being able to bully and intimidate and force out a colleague they don’t like who writes dissents,” she said.
This month Newman asked the Supreme Court to review her claim that she was deprived of due process. The high court takes only a small share of petitions each term, so her appeal is a long shot.
The Federal Circuit and the Justice Department, which is defending the court, declined to comment. An internal committee that handles judicial conduct and disability complaints rejected Newman’s due process claim in a March 24 decision. The committee — made up of respected judges — noted Newman still has an office in the courthouse, employs a law clerk, and continues to receive a paycheck and benefits. “Judge Newman cannot have been deprived of a property interest in an office she still holds,” the committee wrote. The panel said it expects Newman to undergo further medical evaluation.
Political scientist Ryan Black of Michigan State University said the Newman case points to broader issues facing the federal judiciary. “Judges are getting appointed at a younger age and serving for a longer period of time,” he said. More than 30% of federal judges are 75 or older, according to federal court data. Black’s research finds that older judges often rely more on clerks and show measurable declines in some performance areas, suggesting they may need more support from colleagues.
Paul Michel, who retired more than 15 years ago and describes Newman as clear and cogent, personally favors a retirement age for judges—similar to other professions with sensitive responsibilities. “Surgeons, airline pilots, many people with sensitive jobs have to stop at a chosen age set by authorities whether they want to continue or not or whether they’re able to continue or not,” he said.
The question the Supreme Court may face is whether federal judges should be treated differently when it comes to age and continued service.