Judge Pauline Newman, 98, has asked the Supreme Court to review the decision that has kept her off the bench for roughly three years while questions about her fitness to serve play out. Newman, a longtime member of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, says she wants to return to hearing cases and contends she was denied due process when the court opened an inquiry into her competency.
Appointed in 1984 during the Reagan administration, Newman is well known in the small patent-law community. Colleague-turned-observer Paul Michel described her as bright, hardworking and independent, noting she writes slowly, dissents frequently and has long been a distinctive voice on the court. Those traits have contributed to tensions with other judges.
The dispute began in March 2023, when the court’s chief judge launched an investigation into Newman’s fitness to serve. The court proposed medical evaluations by experts it selected; Newman declined and chose her own doctors, who cleared her. No court has formally found her incompetent. Newman’s attorney, John Vecchione of the New Civil Liberties Alliance, has argued the notion that she cannot perform her duties is “nonsense” and says she has been treated more harshly than judges accused of other misconduct.
Newman has remained active publicly: attending conferences, speaking at legal events and continuing to write. In a video put out by her legal team, she framed her challenge as about principle and resisting pressure from colleagues who disagreed with her dissents.
This month she asked the Supreme Court to take up her claim that she was deprived of due process. The high court accepts only a small fraction of petitions, making review uncertain.
An internal judicial committee that handles conduct and disability complaints rejected Newman’s due process argument in a March 24 decision. That committee noted she still has an office, employs a law clerk and continues to receive salary and benefits, saying she has not been deprived of a property interest in her position. The panel also said it expects further medical evaluation.
Legal scholars say the case highlights broader questions about an aging federal judiciary. The average age of federal judges is about 69, and more than 30% are 75 or older. Political scientist Ryan Black has found older judges often rely more heavily on clerks and exhibit measurable declines in some performance areas, suggesting a need for more support or clearer policies on continued service.
Michel, who has defended Newman’s clarity and cogency, said he personally favors a mandatory retirement age for judges, pointing out that other sensitive professions use age limits. At issue now is whether federal judges should be treated differently because of lifetime tenure and what procedures are appropriate when age or capacity becomes a concern.