A 96-year-old judge appointed by Ronald Reagan has been deemed mentally unfit to continue serving by her colleagues.

A 96-year-old judge appointed by Ronald Reagan has been deemed mentally unfit to continue serving by her colleagues.

Title: Judge Pauline Newman Faces Suspension: A Bitter Battle Rocking U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

In a remarkably public and acrimonious clash within the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Judge Pauline Newman finds herself at the center of a heated controversy. The fight, which has escalated to a lawsuit and created a rift among judges, revolves around the question of whether Judge Newman is fit to continue serving on the Washington-based court. The dispute has stirred emotions, but amidst the turmoil, it raises broader questions about factors such as age, mental fitness, and the power dynamics at play within the judiciary.

Judge Newman, a distinguished Ronald Reagan appointee who boasts an impressive four-decade tenure on the circuit court, vehemently insists on her continued ability to make sound legal decisions. She accuses her colleagues of launching baseless attacks against her merely based on her age—a clear indication that she is not willing to go down without a fight.

As one of the 13 U.S. appellate courts, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit plays a pivotal role in adjudicating cases related to government contracts, patents, and trademarks. Appointed through a lifetime nomination process, these federal judges face no mandatory retirement age, making it crucial to weigh their ongoing fitness for duty.

The Federal Circuit’s Judicial Council, composed of Judge Newman’s fellow colleagues, cited concerns about her mental fitness and the alleged disability impairing her from effectively carrying out her role. Despite these “reasonable concerns,” the council’s claim for suspension has further intensified the already suspended Judge Newman’s ordeal. Her attorney, Greg Dolin, reveals that the investigation into her mental fitness has already rendered her unable to preside over any cases since April.

However, Judge Newman and her legal team are not accepting the suspension without a vigorous challenge. They plan to seek review from another committee overseeing judicial conduct nationwide. Arguing that the sanction is “flatly illegal” with a seriously flawed process, they assert that the Judicial Council has turned a blind eye to evidence that contradicts the allegations. Notably, a qualified neurologist attests to Judge Newman’s cognitive function being sufficient for her court’s proceedings. Additionally, data demonstrates that her productivity remains at a consistent level.

• 46% off storage and seating on Amazon Prime Day furniture deals
• Instacart’s shares reverse after blockbuster debut, briefly s...
• Amazon scraps 2% fee for merchants as regulators plan antitrust law...

Amidst the mounting tension, the Federal Circuit’s Judicial Council released an order detailing alleged signs of “significant mental deterioration” in Judge Newman. According to their findings, memory loss, confusion, lack of comprehension, paranoia, anger, hostility, and severe agitation are present. The council also raises concerns about her accumulated backlog of cases and her delay in issuing opinions—an apparent deviation from her colleagues.

In response, Judge Newman’s attorneys condemn the council’s recommendation for suspension as an act rooted in a quest for power, unbounded by statutory requirements, constitutional limits, due process, conflict of interest rules, or fairness. They assert that the committee, headed by Chief Judge Kimberly Moore, has demonstrated a sole objective: keeping Judge Newman off the bench.

The ongoing litigation emphasizes the complexity surrounding questions of age, mental fitness, and power dynamics within the judiciary. While the ultimate outcome of Judge Newman’s battle remains uncertain, it serves as a timely reminder of the critical balance required in evaluating the fitness of judges serving lifetime appointments. As the legal drama unfolds, it is clear that this controversy will undoubtedly shape the future discourse surrounding age and mental health within the judiciary.

Based on reporting by Author Name, Affiliation from Boston.