Colleagues of a 96-year-old judge are asking her…

Bloomberg – The lawsuit brought by Judge Pauline Newman, 96, to Preventing an investigation into his fitness for service Judges investigating the matter in another federal court in Washington, D.C., said they should be dismissed.

Internal procedures of the Special Committee Three judges from the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit They are not subject to judicial review, panel members said in a filing filed Friday night with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. They added that under the Constitution, every court has the power to impose discipline without removing a judge.

“While no one questions Judge Newman’s many contributions to the law, her legal claims here are judicially deficient and unfounded,” the panelists wrote.

It is the latest development in the dispute over Newman’s fitness to continue serving on the bench and follows the two sides reaching an impasse after a mediation order by District Judge Christopher R. Cooper.

The special committee is chaired by Chief Justice Kimberly A. Moore, began a fitness and misconduct investigation in April, citing concerns raised by court staff about Newman’s health. This prompted Newman to file his lawsuit to block the investigation.

“We look forward to reviewing the file, but we are confident that ultimately, the courts will recognize that what is happening to Judge Newman is unconstitutional and must stop,” he said. Greg Doolin, Newman’s attorneyin a statement sent via email Saturday morning.

On August 4, the committee recommended Newman be suspended for one year for refusing to cooperate with the investigation. Newman’s deadline for response to the report was Thursday. The committee has not yet announced the new offers. The recommended suspension cannot be implemented until it is voted on by the full Federal Circuit Judicial Council, although Newman has been excluded from new panels since the investigation began.

Newman’s heart health and the neurologist’s examination he provided to the committee were key to the July hearing on his compliance with the investigation, according to a revised version released in August over Newman’s objections.

Newman’s defenders have not been silent. the Fifth Circuit Judge Edith H. Jones In a message to Wall Street Journal He described Newman as a “brilliant and able jurist” and criticized the committee’s investigation as “inexplicable”. Dr. Ted Rothstein of George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, the neurologist who examined Newman and allowed her to return to court, called the main finding in the panel’s controversial 111-page report a “distortion” of his report and “highly inappropriate.”

According to the court case briefing schedule, Newman’s response to the latest filing will be delivered on Oct. 9 or 21 days after the Judicial Council issues an order on the special committee’s report on Aug. 4, whichever comes first.

‘No judicial review’

The committee said in its filing on Friday that the district court was prohibited from hearing the case.

the Judicial conduct and disability lawunder which the committee is investigating Newman, clearly limits the ability of other courts to intervene, according to the filing.

With limited and specified exceptions, “all orders and decisions” under the law “shall be final and conclusive and may not be judicially reviewed on appeal or otherwise,” the law states, according to the filing. These exceptions include the Judicial Council, which reviews the orders of the Chief Justice, and the National Judicial Conference, which reviews the orders of the Judicial Council.

But the law does not allow any court external The committee said: “Review the decisions of the Special Committee or the Judicial Council.”

The panel wrote that even if judicial review were permitted, it would be inappropriate for a single district judge to review judicial decisions of another federal judiciary, whose actions “would be reviewable only in a court with appellate jurisdiction over those proceedings, not in a court of appropriate jurisdiction.” Appellate jurisdiction over those procedures.” Such a court of original jurisdiction.”

to caution

In addition to Cooper’s request to do so Newman’s suit was dismissedThe panel urged him to deny her reinstatement request, and she was allowed to hear new cases while the district court case moves forward.

Newman claimed He can’t win his “constructive impeachment claim.”Which states that his suspension violates the Constitution by usurping Congress’ exclusive power to remove federal judges.

New man They can still “perform routine judicial tasks” The committee said it related to the cases it considered before the investigation. They said it is “undisputed” that she will continue to serve as an Article III judge “with her term and salary undiminished,” and that she is “encouraged” to serve on current pending case assignments.

However, the committee wrote, federal law that creates judicial councils within each federal circuit court allows agencies to discipline judges, including by suspending the assignment of new cases to a particular judge in the corresponding court. Additionally, D.C. Circuit precedents have upheld the courts’ ability to suspend judges without implicating Congress’ impeachment power, according to the filing.

He also pointed to the fair factors the district court must consider when determining whether to grant Newman’s request. He said Newman would not be affected by not hearing any specific case, while the Federal Circuit and the public would be burdened by Newman’s performance and alleged erratic behavior if the suspension were revoked.

The Ministry of Justice is represented by the Judicial Council of the Federal Circuit and a member of the Special Committee. Newman is represented by the New Civil Liberties Alliance.

Read more at Bloomberg.com