A prominent federal appeals court judge has publicly criticized the handling of a misconduct complaint involving Judge Pauline Newman, a member of the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. Judge Edith Jones, from the 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, expressed her concern that U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and the judiciary’s policymaking body had not intervened to ensure the proper transfer of the complaint away from Newman’s court to a different circuit.
Judge Edith Jones penned a letter to the Wall Street Journal, labeling it as “inexplicable” that there was no intervention to move the misconduct complaint. The complaint involves allegations of Judge Newman’s mental fitness and her alleged lack of cooperation with investigators. Judge Jones highlighted that the Federal Circuit seemed to have bypassed the regular process in conducting the investigation.
Reports suggest that court staff informed a Federal Circuit investigative committee about instances where Judge Newman, at the age of 96, displayed signs of memory loss, confusion, and paranoia. Subsequently, the three judges’ committee found that Judge Newman had engaged in “serious misconduct” by failing to cooperate with their investigation. As a result, they are advocating for her suspension from taking on new cases for either one year or until she undergoes a court-ordered examination.
See also: Judge Pauline Newman Faces Possible Suspension Amid Competence Investigation
Judge Jones, who described herself as a friend of Judge Newman, criticized the current situation, pointing out the inherent conflict of interest within Judge Newman’s own court. This conflict stems from court members holding multiple roles as prosecutors, judges, jurors, and witnesses in this case. The letter underscored concerns about the violation of fundamental due process in the ongoing investigation.
The Federal Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court have yet to respond to requests for comments on the matter. Similarly, Judge Jones was not immediately available for comment.
Judge Newman has strongly denied any misconduct and has maintained that she is fully capable of serving as a judge. This dispute marks the first instance of an uninvolved sitting judge publicly expressing their opinion on this uncommon public clash. Notably, both Judge Newman, known for her expertise in patent law, and Judge Jones, the former chief judge of the conservative-leaning Fifth Circuit, were appointed by former President Ronald Reagan.
This public controversy aligns with claims made by Judge Newman in a federal lawsuit that aims to shift the investigation to a court perceived as more neutral. This lawsuit also seeks to end the suspension that has barred Judge Newman from presiding over new cases. At present, the lawsuit is in a mediation phase.
Contrary to Newman’s requests, the Federal Circuit has maintained that the investigation should remain under its jurisdiction, asserting that her home court is best equipped to handle the inquiry. Judicial rules allow an appeals court’s chief judge or judicial council to request the U.S. Supreme Court chief justice transfer a misconduct complaint to another circuit. It’s worth noting that Roberts has granted such requests in the past, although he typically does so in response to formal petitions.
It remains to be seen whether the concerns raised by Judge Edith Jones and the ongoing mediation of the federal lawsuit will lead to a redirection of the investigation and a resolution to the suspension faced by Judge Pauline Newman. The intersection of judicial responsibilities, due process, and impartiality in this case brings attention to the complex nature of managing internal judicial matters.
Don’t be a silent ninja! Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.
