United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit

UNDER SEAL (NON-PUBLIC ORDER)

__________________________ 

IN RE COMPLAINT NO. 23-90015

__________________________ 

Before the Judicial Council of the Federal Circuit

PER CURIAM. 

ORDER 

By order of March 24, 2023, Chief Judge Moore appointed a special committee (the Committee) to investigate 

and report its findings and recommendations with respect 

to a complaint identified against Judge Newman pursuant 

to Rule 5 of the Rules for Judicial-Conduct and JudicialDisability Proceedings. The complaint was based, inter 

alia, on a concern that Judge Newman may be “unable to 

discharge all the duties of office by reason of mental or 

physical disability.” 28 U.S.C. § 351(a). 

Prior to the formation of that Committee, on March 8, 

2023, the Judicial Council met to consider concerns raised 

about Judge Newman’s mental fitness by court staff and 

Judge Newman’s abnormally large backlog in cases and 

her apparent inability to issue opinions in a timely fashion. 

The Judicial Council voted unanimously to preclude the assignment of new cases to Judge Newman. In the course of 

the proceedings before the Committee, Judge Newman requested that she immediately be restored to the rotation of 

new case assignments. See May 25, 2023 Letter from G. 

Dolin to The Special Committee at 3. The Committee 
IN RE COMPLAINT NO 23-90015

2 

referred that request to the Judicial Council and, construing it as a request for reconsideration of the Council’s prior 

decision, the Council has reconsidered, based on currently 

available information, whether Judge Newman should be

precluded from receiving new case assignments. As explained below, having considered the matter de novo, under the facts as they currently stand, the Council has 

determined that Judge Newman should not be allowed new 

case assignments. 

The Circumstances at the Time of the Council’s 

March 8 Order

When the Council met on March 8, significant concerns 

had been raised about Judge Newman’s backlog of cases

and her apparent inability to issue opinions in a timely 

fashion. Concerns had also been raised by court staff about 

her mental fitness to continue to perform the work of an 

active judge. At that point in time, Judge Newman had 

nine opinions pending, four of which were over 120 days old 

and one of which was 454 days old. Judge Newman had 

already been foreclosed from assignment to any panel for 

the April sitting because, when cases were being assigned 

for April in February, her backlog had placed her in violation of Federal Circuit Clerical Procedures #3, ¶ 15. Pursuant to that provision, new cases will not be assigned to 

any judge with four or more opinions over six months old 

or two or more opinions over one year old. 

In addition, Judge Newman’s backlog of cases would 

have been even larger if there had not been several interventions over the previous 18 months in which cases had 

been reassigned from her to another judge following unnecessary delay and the circulation of draft opinions that no 

other member of the panels would join. These instances 

are described in the order of March 24. See March 24, 2023 

Order at 4–5. To give just a few examples: (1) (

), a pro se submitted case, was reassigned after it had 
IN RE COMPLAINT NO 23-90015

3 

been pending 374 days; (2) ( ), a pro se submitted case, was reassigned after it had been pending 624 

days; and (3) ( ), a pro se submitted 

case, was reassigned after it had been pending 302 days.

The backlog was a source of even greater concern for 

the Council because Judge Newman had accumulated this 

backlog despite taking on significantly less work than 

other active judges on the Court. Judge Newman had not 

participated in motions panels since January 2021 and she 

was already on a significantly reduced rotation for panel 

assignments. From June 2022 through March 2023, the 

average active judge on the Court participated in 116 cases, 

while Judge Newman participated in only 60.

De Novo Consideration of Barring Judge Newman from New Case Assignments

Based on the information available to the Council today, the Council has now considered de novo whether there 

are grounds to preclude Judge Newman from receiving new 

case assignments and whether an order should issue precluding her from receiving such assignments.

Unfortunately, the Council’s concerns about Judge 

Newman’s abnormally large backlog of cases and her apparent inability to issue opinions in a timely fashion have 

not abated. To the contrary, they have increased. Since 

the Council’s March action, Judge Newman has issued only 

two of her majority opinions. She still has a backlog of 

seven opinions, three of which have been pending for over 

200 days and all of which have been pending for over 100 

days. Four of them, moreover, are cases submitted without 

argument that are generally among the most expeditiously 

resolved. These are all opinions which she assigned to herself yet has been unable to circulate to the panels for vote. 

The Council is particularly concerned that Judge Newman has been unable to make any significant progress on 
IN RE COMPLAINT NO 23-90015

4 

addressing her opinion backlog despite having three law 

clerks, having no new cases assigned for April, May, June, 

or July, and not sitting on motions panels since January 

2021. 

In addition, the publicly available May 16 order details

substantial data from the Clerk’s office demonstrating that 

Judge Newman, despite issuing dramatically fewer opinions than other judges on the court, takes much longer to 

do it. Between October 1, 2021 and March 24, 2023, Judge 

Newman authored only 10 majority opinions. The average 

for other active judges was 58. See May 16 Order at 13. If 

dissents and concurrences are accounted for, the average 

active judge authored 61 opinions while Judge Newman 

authored 28. See id. Despite the lower opinion load, Judge 

Newman was dramatically slower. The average time to issuance after assignment for other judges was 58 days; for 

Judge Newman it was approximately 199 days. See id. 

Such lengthy delays are a disservice to the litigants before 

the Court, who have a right to have their matters resolved 

expeditiously. The Council is concerned that assigning additional cases to Judge Newman now will only interfere 

with her ability to clear her current backlog and exacerbate 

delays in her already long-delayed opinions.

In light of Judge Newman’s continued backlog of cases, 

and her inability to clear the backlog despite the absence 

of new cases assignments demanding her attention, the 

Council concludes upon de novo consideration that Judge 

Newman is not expeditiously carrying out the work of the 

Court, that assigning her new cases will only further interfere with expeditious execution of the work of the Court, 

and that an order precluding Judge Newman from new 

case assignments is warranted.

This action is warranted under the Council’s statutory 

authority to “make all necessary and appropriate orders for 

the effective and expeditious administration of justice 
IN RE COMPLAINT NO 23-90015

5 

within its circuit.” 28 U.S.C. § 332(d)(1). Under section 

332(d), the Council has broad authority to suspend the assignment of new cases, or to reassign pending cases, to a 

given judge to address delays that interfere with the “expeditious administration of justice.” See, e.g., U.S. v. ColonMunoz, 318 F.3d 348, 354–55 (1st Cir. 2008) (“An order of 

the Judicial Council reassigning cases . . . to address judicial delay falls within the broad mandate of § 332(d).”). Indeed, the Supreme Court has expressly recognized that 

rules imposed by a judicial council suspending the assignment of new cases until a judge resolves a backlog of existing cases “are reasonable, proper, and necessary rules, and 

the need for [their] enforcement cannot reasonably be 

doubted.” Chandler v. Jud. Council of Tenth Cir. of U. S., 

398 U.S. 74, 85 (1970). The same authority extends to suspending a judge from case assignments by order of the judicial council. The Council concludes that Judge Newman’s 

backlog of cases and her delays outlined above provide a 

complete and sufficient basis for an order barring her from 

the assignment of new cases. This is not a censure but rather a decision made for the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the court. 

In addition, although not necessary for its decision, the 

Council notes that its action is further buttressed by the

substantial information that has been described in the publicly available orders. The Council is not required to blind 

itself to that information in carrying out its duties under 

section 332(d). The information the Committee has detailed in its order of May 16 raises, at a minimum, a reasonable concern that Judge Newman may suffer from a 

disability that renders her incapable of carrying out the duties of her office and thus incapable of issuing her opinions 

more promptly. That information tends to confirm the 

Council’s concern that, if Judge Newman were restored to 

the rotation of new case assignments, the addition of new 

work to her load would exacerbate the delays in her current 
IN RE COMPLAINT NO 23-90015

6 

cases and simply add a new set of cases into Judge Newman’s backlog where they will linger unresolved for months 

if not years. That would further interfere with the expeditious administration of justice in this Court and do a disservice to litigants. 

Beyond that, the information the Committee has publicly detailed may raise a legitimate concern that Judge 

Newman may suffer from a cognitive impairment that affects her ability to decide cases. The Council believes that 

ensuring the “effective and expeditious administration of 

justice,” 28 U.S.C. § 332(d)(1), may justify refraining from 

assigning litigants to a judge when there are substantial 

grounds (made public at the judge’s request) to doubt the 

judge’s fitness to decide cases. We need not reach at this 

time whether concerns about mental fitness alone can justify Council action of the present sort pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 332(d)(1) or 28 U.S.C. §§ 351-364 prior to action by the 

Council on a finding of disability under § 354. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

Judge Newman shall be excluded in the rotation for 

new case assignments at this time based on the facts described above pending further order of the Judicial Council. 

SO ORDERED: June 5, 2023.