NCLA Reaffirms Why SCOTUS Must Mandate Review of Illegal Orders Removing Judge Newman

Hon. Pauline Newman v. Hon. Kimberly A. Moore, et al.

Washington, D.C., June 03, 2026 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The New Civil Liberties Alliance filed its reply brief today urging the Supreme Court to hear Newman v. Moore and mandate judicial review of administrative orders that have kept Federal Circuit Judge Pauline Newman off the bench for over three years so far. This is the longest suspension of a federal judge in history. Driven by Chief Judge Kimberly Moore, the Judicial Council of the Federal Circuit has gone beyond its legal authority by effectively removing Judge Newman from office, even stopping her from hiring law clerks and leaving her off the distribution list for proposed opinions. Representing Judge Newman, NCLA and co-counsel Jonathan Mitchell successfully demonstrate how the Judicial Council’s response opposing her Supreme Court petition is actually powerful evidence that the Justices should hear the case, in order to vindicate judicial independence and the separation of powers.

Effectively removing an Article III judge from all functions is unconstitutional and violates the right to due process and the Judicial Councils Reform and Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980. That statute only authorizes circuit courts to investigate and suspend judges from hearing new cases once, for a brief period with a definitive end date, after a finding of misconduct or disability. It explicitly forbids a judge’s removal from office. During this bitterly unjust attack on her distinguished career, Judge Newman has passed three separate mental tests, performed by three different doctors, demonstrating her fitness for office.

Despite what the Solicitor-General has argued on behalf of the Judicial Council, the Disability Act allows Judge Newman to seek a court order ending her unlawful suspension. It also allows her to seek a court order preventing her from being unlawfully suspended again in the future. The Disability Act does not—and may not—shield the Judicial Council’s mere administrative action suspending Judge Newman from being reviewed by a court of law.

The Solicitor-General wrongly says Judge Newman “forfeited” some of her claims against her suspension by failing to adequately present them at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. NCLA and Judge Newman challenged her suspension there aggressively. Regrettably, the D.C. Circuit panel in the case interpreted the D.C. Circuit’s 2001 ruling in McBryde v. Committee to Review Circuit Council Conduct & Disability Orders of the U.S. Judicial Conference to prevent that court from hearing “as applied” constitutional arguments challenging Judicial Council suspension orders and other disciplinary actions against judges. The D.C. Circuit panel wrote that McBryde “relied on a potentially strained reading of the relevant legislative history” and “raise[d] constitutional concerns” in itself. Indeed, under the doctrine of constitutional avoidance, the Supreme Court should take this case and construe the Disability Act to allow judicial review because otherwise the statute is unconstitutional.

NCLA released the following statements:

“The Reply again explains why Judge Newman is entitled to her day in court—an Article III court.”
— Andrew Morris, Senior Litigation Counsel, NCLA

“An Article III Judge should have her case heard by an Article III Court, so we believe the Supreme Court should take this case.”
— John Vecchione, Senior Litigation Counsel, NCLA

“Pauline Newman is a hero for standing up to Chief Judge Moore’s stealth impeachment attempt. The Judicial Council is a mere administrative actor whose actions must be subject to judicial review. If the Supreme Court denies certiorari in this case, it will sound the death knell for judicial independence because it will allow federal judges to sideline their own colleagues in a manner never contemplated nor countenanced by the Constitution.”
— Mark Chenoweth, President and Chief Legal Officer, NCLA

For more information visit the case page here.

ABOUT NCLA
NCLA is a nonpartisan, nonprofit civil rights group founded by prominent legal scholar Philip Hamburger to protect constitutional freedoms from violations by the Administrative State. NCLA’s public-interest litigation and other pro bono advocacy strive to tame the unlawful power of state and federal agencies and to foster a new civil liberties movement that will help restore Americans’ fundamental rights.

Joe Martyak
New Civil Liberties Alliance
703-403-1111
joe.martyak@ncla.legal

Legal Disclaimer:

EIN Presswire provides this news content "as is" without warranty of any kind. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright issues related to this article, kindly contact the author above.