Posts Tagged: "Judge Pauline Newman"

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s Special Committee that is investigating Judge Pauline Newman for misconduct today released a number of additional documents, including a 319-page one dated July 31 recommending Newman be suspended from taking on case assignments for one year, “or at least until she ceases her misconduct and cooperates such that the Committee can complete its investigation.” The report included a number of Exhibits and a transcript of an April deposition, but notably missing is the transcript of the July 13 hearing. A statement from the Committee says it “is prepared to release that transcript, but has been waiting for proposed redactions from Judge Newman since July 27. Once Judge Newman proposes any redactions or confirms that she has none, the transcript will be released promptly.”

On June 20, 2023, the Special Committee of the Judicial Council of the Federal Circuit that is investigating a complaint identified against Judge Pauline Newman issued an Order denying Judge Newman’s request to make a July 13 hearing open to the public, but said it would consider publishing a redacted transcript of the hearing that protects witnesses’ identities. However, as of today, August 1, no transcript has been made available. In a Clause 8 interview published earlier today, Judge Newman’s counsel said he is under a secrecy order with respect to discussing the hearing but hinted that the process did not allow for a mutual exchange and was rather more akin to an oral argument. So, as difficult as it is to believe, perhaps the better question is “if” the Federal Circuit’s Special Committee will release a transcript at all—ever. 

As we await a transcript of the July 13 hearing that took place in the Special Committee of the Judicial Council of the Federal Circuit’s investigation into Judge Pauline Newman’s alleged unfitness to remain on the court, Newman spoke with Bloomberg this week as a guest on its “On the Merits” podcast. She recounted for host David Schultz that she was told when confronted with the allegations, “Just go quietly or we’ll make your life miserable’; that was exactly the way it was presented to me.”

According to an Order filed today by Judge Christopher Cooper of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Retired Judge Thomas Griffith will informally mediate with the parties in the case brought by Judge Pauline Newman against the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s (CAFC’s) Special Committee that is investigating the question of her competence to continue serving on the court. Most recently, on Thursday, July 6, Judge Cooper, who was assigned the district court case brought in May by Newman against Moore, said he recognized that the dispute “is obviously of great sensitivity as well as importance to both the Federal Circuit bar and the public in the courts more generally” and called for the parties to enter into mediation.

Anyone reading this by now knows of the current situation with Judge Pauline Newman and the investigation initiated by Chief Judge Moore. As a former chief judge of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, I understand the challenges of overseeing smart, independent, and strong-willed judges, and I’ve gained a somewhat unique perspective on the ongoing saga, albeit as an outsider.

As the readers of this blog know, the Special Committee of the Judicial Council of the Federal Circuit is investigating a complaint identified against Federal Circuit Judge Pauline Newman. The Complaint alleges that Judge Newman “is unable to discharge all the duties of office by reason of mental or physical disability.” As a result, the Complaint essentially alleges, Judge Newman has authored too few majority (including unanimous per curiam) opinions compared to her colleagues, ignoring altogether the disproportionately larger number of her authored dissenting opinions. But the available evidence does not support the Complaint’s contention that Judge Newman’s performance has adversely changed in any statistically-significant way compared to that of her colleagues on the court.

The Special Committee of the Judicial Council of the Federal Circuit that is investigating a complaint identified against Judge Pauline Newman filed an Order today clarifying the scope of its investigation. The Order was in response to a June 15 letter from Newman’s counsel asking for clarification of the narrowed scope of the investigation and also asking that the July 13 hearing be open to the public, which the Committee refused. The Order clarified that “no part of the investigation has been terminated” and that the investigation into whether Newman “suffers from a disability that impairs her ability to perform the duties of her office remains ongoing.” In separate orders issued June 1 and June 5, the Special Committee narrowed the focus of its investigation to whether Newman’s refusal to undergo medical examination and to provide medical records constitutes misconduct, and agreed to publicly release a number of documents at the request of Newman’s counsel, respectively.

The Judicial Council of the Federal Circuit has denied Judge Pauline Newman’s request to be restored to the rotation of new case assignments pending a Special Committee’s investigation into her fitness to serve on the court. The Committee referred Newman’s request to the Judicial Council, which construed it as a request for reconsideration of its previous decision to preclude the assignment of new cases to Newman, and determined again that she should not be allowed new case assignments.

The Special Committee of the Judicial Council of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) that is investigating Judge Pauline Newman over allegations she is unfit to serve on the court issued a redacted order yesterday specifying the behavior they say warrants the probe. Amid calls from Newman’s attorneys and ethics experts to transfer the complaint to a different circuit, a footnote on page one of yesterday’s order somewhat confusingly notes that Chief Judge Moore “did not file a complaint nor is she a complainant. Instead, Chief Judge Moore identified a complaint pursuant to Rule 5, which allows a Chief Judge to initiate the complaint when others have presented allegations establishing probable cause to believe a disability exists.”

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) Judge Pauline Newman yesterday filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against CAFC Chief Judge Kimberly Moore and Judges Prost and Taranto, as members of the Special Committee of the Judicial Council of the Federal Circuit appointed by Moore to investigate Newman. The complaint called Moore’s March 24 Order characterizing Newman as being unfit to carry out her duties on the court “riddled with errors” and cited 12 counts warranting claims for relief.

How much damage is Chief Judge Moore doing to the institution that is the Federal Circuit? That question is hard to answer in the present, but there is no doubt that she is causing the type of damage that will linger and perhaps ultimately lead to the downfall of the court itself. Even before the latest episode in which Chief Judge Moore has taken it upon herself to impeach Judge Newman, acting as complainant, investigator, witness and decider, it had become common for many in the industry to ask openly whether the Federal Circuit had outlived its usefulness.

The New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA), the firm representing U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) Judge Pauline Newman in CAFC Chief Judge Kimberly Moore’s bid to oust her from the court, sent a letter today to the CAFC Chief Judge calling for the case to be transferred to a new circuit. The letter charges that Moore has ordered that no new cases be assigned to Newman, that the complaint Moore identified against her “contains basic errors of fact”, and that Newman was not afforded enough time to respond to Moore’s numerous demands, among other accusations. U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts also received a copy of the letter.

On Wednesday, April 12, IPWatchdog was first to break the news that U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Chief Judge Kimberly Moore has identified a judicial complaint against Judge Pauline Newman under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act. In response to IPWatchdog’s report and subsequent reporting by other news outlets, the court on Friday issued a statement confirming the information provided by IPWatchdog’s sources and making the previously sealed documents public. According to the March 24, 2023, redacted Order identifying the complaint against Newman, Moore is claiming she has probable cause to believe that Newman is unable to effectively discharge the duties of her office “by reason of mental or physical disability,” citing to 28 U.S.C. 351(a).

IPWatchdog has learned from several sources this week that U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) Chief Judge Kimberly Moore has filed a judicial complaint against Judge Pauline Newman under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act. According to those who have seen the complaint, Moore is claiming she has probable cause to believe that Newman is unable to effectively discharge the duties of her office. Sources tell IPWatchdog that Chief Judge Moore primarily makes two separate allegations against Judge Newman. First, that Judge Newman is slow to issue opinions, which affects the administration of justice. Second, Moore has apparently heard stories from colleagues and others at the court that cause her to have concerns about Judge Newman’s overall ability to serve. Numerous staff and colleagues with knowledge of the complaint filed against Newman have contacted IPWatchdog to both confirm the filing of the complaint and to vehemently oppose the allegations being made about Judge Newman’s competence.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Thursday issued a precedential decision holding that SAS Institute , Inc. failed to establish copyrightability of its asserted software program elements. Judge Newman dissented, arguing the ruling “contravenes the Copyright Act and departs from the long-established precedent and practice of copyrightability of computer programs” and that it represents a “far-reaching change.”