Steven J. Gaitman, Esq.
Steven J. Gaitman, a former New York public defender with 25 years of experience in criminal law, is a partner at Gaitman & Russo, LLP. Mr. Gaitman is licensed in New York, New Jersey and Federal courts. The firm focuses its practice in Federal and State criminal defense, criminal appeals, and post-conviction relief. He can be reached directly at 877-707-5659 or at https://www.notguiltyli.com/contact-us/
In a recent and contentious development, Judge Pauline Newman, a 96-year-old federal appeals court judge in the United States, has been suspended from hearing cases for a year. This suspension comes in the wake of a panel’s decision, which alleged that she had declined to undergo medical testing, raising concerns about her mental fitness to serve on the bench.
The controversy surrounding Judge Newman’s tenure has been unusually public and acrimonious, leading to a lawsuit and causing rifts among fellow judges. Newman, appointed by President Ronald Reagan almost four decades ago, vehemently asserts her physical and mental fitness to continue making legal decisions. She accuses her colleagues of making baseless claims driven by ageism to force her resignation.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, where Newman serves, handles cases related to government contracts, patents, and trademarks. Federal judges in the U.S. serve for life, and there is no mandatory retirement age.
The Federal Circuit’s Judicial Council, consisting of Newman’s fellow judges, deemed the suspension necessary due to her refusal to cooperate with an investigation into her mental fitness, citing “reasonable concerns” about her ability to discharge her duties effectively. According to the council’s order, the suspension can be extended if she continues to resist the investigation or revoked if she chooses to cooperate. This suspension bars her from presiding over new cases, although she had already been suspended since April during the investigation.
Greg Dolin, Newman’s attorney, stated their intent to seek a review by another committee responsible for judicial conduct nationwide, contending that the sanction is “flatly illegal” and that the process has been deeply flawed. He criticized the Judicial Council for appearing to have reached a predetermined conclusion.
In May, Newman filed a federal lawsuit against her fellow judges in response to the investigation, alleging that it was launched after she refused to resign, despite Chief Judge Kimberly Moore’s demands for her resignation.
The Judicial Council’s decision pointed to interviews with court staff that indicated “significant mental deterioration,” including memory loss, confusion, paranoia, and hostility. They also noted a backlog of cases and a delay in issuing opinions compared to her colleagues.
Newman’s legal team argues that the suspension recommendation disregarded evidence, including a statement from a qualified neurologist affirming her cognitive function’s sufficiency for court proceedings and data showing no decline in her productivity. They contend that the investigation has been driven by a desire to remove Newman from the bench, irrespective of statutory requirements, due process, or fairness.
The controversy surrounding Judge Newman’s suspension highlights the complexities surrounding the fitness of long-serving judges and the impact of age-related concerns in the judiciary.
GENERAL SEARCH TERMS (TAGS)
SPECIFIC SEARCH TERMS (TAGS)
