Sign Up

NCLA Site Search

Cases

The Hon. Pauline Newman v. The Hon. Kimberly A. Moore, et al.

Back to Case Finder

CASE: The Hon. Pauline Newman v. The Hon. Kimberly A. Moore, et al.

STATUS: Active

NCLA ROLE: Counsel

COURTS HEARD IN: D.C. Cir., Fed. Cir., D.C.

ORIGINAL COURT: U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

DECIDING COURT: U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

OPENED: April 21, 2023

AGENCIES: Judicial Council of the Federal Circuit

FOCUS AREAS:

Due Process Violations

The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

Scope of Authority / Nondelegation

The structure of the Constitution allows only Congress to legislate, only the Executive to enforce laws, and only the Judiciary to decide cases. But the Administrative State evades the Constitution’s avenues of governance when executive agencies issue regulations without statutory authorization from Congress.

CASE SUMMARY

Chief Judge Kimberly A. Moore of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit claimed that U.S. Circuit Judge Pauline Newman “is unable to discharge all duties of the office by reason of mental or physical disability”. Moore appointed a three-judge special committee—including herself—to investigate the matter. Without citing any legal authority and prior to the conclusion of any investigation, Chief Judge Moore removed Judge Newman from new hearing cases for an indefinite period. She also impeded Judge Newman’s access to court chambers and unilaterally decided that the judicial assistant working for Judge Newman “is no longer an employee of the Newman chambers.”  

Chief Judge Moore’s unlawful action to bar Judge Newman from carrying out the duties of her appointed office poses significant constitutional difficulties because it impinges on the Constitution’s guarantee that federal judges hold and exercise the functions of their office “during good behaviour.” Her action also violated due process of law and raises serious concerns about Chief Judge Moore’s ability to conduct this investigation impartially.

In September 2023, the Judicial Council of the Federal Circuit unlawfully suspended Judge Newman from hearing new cases for at least a year. The Judicial Council extended the suspension for at least another year in September 2024.

OUR CLIENT

The Hon. Pauline Newman, Plaintiff in Newman v. Moore, et al.

OUR TEAM

Mark Chenoweth
President and Chief Legal Officer
John J. Vecchione
Senior Litigation Counsel
Greg Dolin
Senior Litigation Counsel

RELEVANT MATERIALS

NCLA FILINGS

Brief of Hon. Janice Rogers Brown, Hon. Paul R. Michel, Hon. Randall R. Rader, Hon. Thomas I. Vanaskie, Hon. Paul G. Cassell, and Hon. Susan G. Braden as Amici Curiae in Support of Appellant, Urging Reversal

December 12, 2024 | Read More

Amicus Curiae Brief of The Buckeye Institute in Support of Appellant and Reversal

December 12, 2024 | Read More

Brief of Amici Curiae Manhattan Institute, Hon. Dean Pinkert, and Professors Steve Charnovitz, Rochelle Dreyfuss, Brian Dean Abramson, Andrew C. Michaels, Hugh Hansen, and Howard Knopf Supporting Plaintiff-Appellant and Reversal

December 12, 2024 | Read More

Brief for Amicus Curiae in Support of Judge Newman

December 12, 2024 | Read More

Appellants' Opening Brief

December 5, 2024 | Read More

SEE 25 FILINGS
PRESS RELEASES

Retired Judges’ Amicus Brief Supports Judge Newman in NCLA Suit Against Her Suspension

December 13, 2024 | Read More

NCLA Asks D.C. Circuit to Rule Against Unlawful Suspension of Federal Circuit Judge Pauline Newman

December 5, 2024 | Read More

“Judge Newman Fit to Judge,” Reports Harvard-Trained Neurosurgeon Expert

September 24, 2024 | Read More

NCLA Will Continue the Fight to End Unlawful Suspension of Federal Circuit Judge Pauline Newman

February 7, 2024 | Read More

NCLA Asks D.C. District Court to Halt Illegal Suspension of Hon. Pauline Newman

October 26, 2023 | Read More

SEE 10 PRESS RELEASES
IN THE MEDIA

I Met Judge Pauline Newman. She Proves Age Is Just a Number

NCLA Blog

September 8, 2023

Judges Attack Judicial Independence

August 10, 2023

Federal Circuit Judge Newman Attempts to Transfer Fitness Complaint to Another Court

JD Journal

May 12, 2023

The Stealth Impeachment of Judge Newman in the Federal Circuit

Reason

May 12, 2023

Reagan-Appointed Judge, Now 95, Faces Probe Into Whether She Can Still Do the Job

Fox News

May 12, 2023

SEE 9 MEDIA MENTIONS

CASE HIGHLIGHTS

RELATED CASES
  • Adir International v. Starr Indemnity and Liability Company

    Due Process Violations

    The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

    Case Closed -

    Agencies: California

    View Case
  • American Home Furnishings Alliance, et al. v. U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission

    Due Process Violations

    The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

    Scope of Authority / Nondelegation

    The structure of the Constitution allows only Congress to legislate, only the Executive to enforce laws, and only the Judiciary to decide cases. But the Administrative State evades the Constitution’s avenues of governance when executive agencies issue regulations without statutory authorization from Congress.

    Case Closed - June 30, 2023

    Agencies: Consumer Product Safety Commission

    View Case
  • American Honda Motor Co., Inc. v. Walther, Dir., and Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration

    Judicial Deference

    Deference doctrines require judges to defer to an administrative agency’s fact finding, or its interpretation of statutes and regulations. Thus, judges surrender their independent judgment and, where the government is a party, must exhibit systematic bias in the government’s favor, which denies due process of law to the other litigant.

    Due Process Violations

    The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

    Case Closed -

    Agencies: Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration

    View Case
  • American Hospital Association, et al. v. Xavier Becerra, et al.

    Judicial Deference

    Deference doctrines require judges to defer to an administrative agency’s fact finding, or its interpretation of statutes and regulations. Thus, judges surrender their independent judgment and, where the government is a party, must exhibit systematic bias in the government’s favor, which denies due process of law to the other litigant.

    Due Process Violations

    The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

    Scope of Authority / Nondelegation

    The structure of the Constitution allows only Congress to legislate, only the Executive to enforce laws, and only the Judiciary to decide cases. But the Administrative State evades the Constitution’s avenues of governance when executive agencies issue regulations without statutory authorization from Congress.

    Case Closed - June 15, 2022

    Agencies: Department of Health and Human Services

    View Case
  • American Securities Association and Citadel Securities LLC v. United States Securities and Exchange Commission

    Due Process Violations

    The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

    Scope of Authority / Nondelegation

    The structure of the Constitution allows only Congress to legislate, only the Executive to enforce laws, and only the Judiciary to decide cases. But the Administrative State evades the Constitution’s avenues of governance when executive agencies issue regulations without statutory authorization from Congress.

    Administrative Speech Controls

    The Administrative State tries to squelch speech, especially through licensing, speech bans, and speech mandates. Licensing requires one to get the government’s permission prior to speaking. Nothing was more clearly forbidden by the First Amendment than prior restraints on speech, but such controls are now commonplace.

    Unreasonable Searches

    The Fourth Amendment forbids warrantless searches and seizures of information, yet the Administrative State violates this right to privacy through administrative subpoenas and warrants, automated information collection devices, civil investigative demands, and “voluntary” requests for information.

    Conditions on Spending

    Administrative agencies use unconstitutional conditions on spending to regulate the conduct of grantees. Rather than rule through law, the government simply purchases submission.

    Case Active - February 15, 2024

    Agencies: Securities and Exchange Commission

    View Case
  • AMG Capital Management, LLC v. FTC and FTC v. Credit Bureau Center, LLC

    Due Process Violations

    The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

    Scope of Authority / Nondelegation

    The structure of the Constitution allows only Congress to legislate, only the Executive to enforce laws, and only the Judiciary to decide cases. But the Administrative State evades the Constitution’s avenues of governance when executive agencies issue regulations without statutory authorization from Congress.

    Case Closed -

    Agencies: Federal Trade Commission

    View Case

SHARE THIS CASE

Enter your email address above to be notified whenever we post a new document to this case.