fflniteb �tate� <!Court of �peal� 

for tbe jf eberal <!Circuit 

UNDER SEAL (NON-PUBLIC ORDER) 

IN RE COMPLAINT NO. 23-90015 

Before MOORE, Chief Judge, PROST and TARANTO, Circuit 

Judges. 

PERCURIAM. 

ORDER 

By order of May 16, 2023, the special committee composed of Chief Judge Moore, Judge Prost, and Judge Taranto (the Committee) ordered Judge Newman to undergo 

certain neurological and neuro-psychological examinations 

and to submit certain medical records to the neurologist selected by the Committee and also asked Judge Newman to 

appear for an interview with the Committee. The May 16 

Order repeated, with clarifications, directives (and an interview request) issued by the Committee starting in early 

April. The May 16 Order established a deadline of 9:00 am 

on May 23, 2023, for Judge Newman to respond indicating 

whether she would agree: (i) to undergo the specified examinations; (ii) to provide the requested medical records; and 

(iii) to appear for an interview (with the examinations, the

provision of records, and interview to occur at later dates).

On May 22, the Committee extended the deadline to 9:00

am on May 26, 2023.

On May 25, Judge Newman responded through counsel 

and refused to comply with any aspect of the May 16 Order 
IN RE COMPLAINT NO 23-90015 

(May 25 Response). Judge Newman indicated that she 

would not cooperate in any respect unless (i) she was immediately restored to the rotation of assignments for new 

cases and (ii) this matter was transferred to be considered 

by the judicial council of another circuit. May 25 Response 

at 3. If those demands were met, Judge Newman indicated 

that she intended to start over from the beginning by negotiating with a new Special Committee in the transferee circuit concerning "selecting medical providers" and "setting 

the appropriate parameters for any examination." Id; see

also May 9 Response ("Judge Newman reserves the right 

to request that the transferee council restart the entire process"). 

On May 26, 2023, pursuant to Rule 13(a) of the Rules 

for Judicial Conduct and Disability Proceedings, the Committee requested that this investigation be expanded to 

consider whether Judge Newman's refusal to cooperate 

constituted misconduct. The same day, Chief Judge Moore 

issued an order expanding the investigation to include that 

question of misconduct. 

In light of the practical constraints that Judge Newman's refusal to cooperate places on the Committee's ability to proceed, this order narrows the focus of the 

Committee's further investigation and establishes a timetable for further proceedings. 

The Committee believes that Judge Newman's refusal 

to comply with the Committee's orders requiring her to undergo medical examinations and to provide medical records 

and its request for an interview significantly impairs the 

Committee's ability to make a fully informed assessment of 

whether Judge Newman suffers from a disability that impairs her ability to perform the functions of her office and 

to make a recommendation to the Judicial Council on that 

issue. The Committee does have strong evidence suggesting such a disability-notably, information showing that 

2 
IN RE COMPLAINT NO 23-90015 

despite handling far less than an active judge's work, 

Judge Newman has abnormally, lengthy delays in issuing 

opinions ; and overwhelming evidence from the Court staff 

who interact with Judge Newman that Judge Newman has 

displayed troubling changes in behavior, including inability to focus, short term memory loss, confusion and agitation. But the Committee believes it important, in order to 

make a formal finding concerning a disability, to obtain the 

input it has specified from independent medical professionals after they have actually examined Judge Newman. In 

the Adams case, the Judicial Council of the Sixth Circuit 

concluded that it could not determine whether Judge Adams suffered from a disability that rendered him unable to 

discharge the duties of his office "because Judge Adams refused to undergo an evaluation by the forensic psychiatrist 

the Special Investigating Committee retained." Order & 

Mem., In re Complaint of Judicial Misconduct, No. 06-13-

90009, at 27 (Sixth Cir. Judicial Council Feb. 22, 2016); see 

also Mem. of Decision, In re: Complaint of Judicial Misconduct, C.C.D. No. 17-01, at 36 (Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability, Aug. 14, 2017) (noting that "input from 

an independent medical expert is necessary to fully and 

fairly assess [a judge's] mental condition and fitness to continue to serve as a judge"); see also id. at 37 (noting that 

the ability of the Sixth Circuit judicial council to make 

"findings with regard to Judge Adams's capability of discharging his adjudicative responsibilities" was "impeded by 

Judge Adams's refusal to submit to a mental health examination"). 

Accordingly, the Committee investigation will focus on 

the question whether Judge Newman's refusal to cooperate 

with the Committee's investigation constitutes misconduct. See Rule 4(a)(5) ("Cognizable misconduct includes refusing, without good cause shown, to cooperate in the 

investigation of a complaint or enforcement of a decision 

rendered under these Rules."). Given that the Committee 

3 
IN RE COMPLAINT NO 23-90015 

is narrowing its investigation at this time to whether the 

failure to cooperate constitutes misconduct, the Committee 

will likewise limit its consideration of any remedial action 

solely to remedies for such misconduct that do not require 

additional factual development. In that regard, the Committee directs Counsel's attention to the statement of the 

Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability in the Adams case noting that "sanctions for [a judge's] continued 

failure to cooperate" with orders for a mental health examination may include a "prohibition of the assignment of new 

cases on a temporary basis for a time certain." Mem. of 

Decision, In re: Complaint of Judicial Misconduct, C.C.D. 

No. 17-01, at 39 (Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability, Aug. 14, 2017). 

Because narrowing the focus of further proceedings to 

the question of misconduct dramatically narrows the issues 

at stake, the Committee believes that this approach will 

also necessarily result in a more streamlined process. Most 

importantly, the question whether Judge Newman's responses to the Committee's orders constitute "refusing, 

without good cause shown, to cooperate in the investigation," Rule 4(a)(5), can be determined based upon the paper 

record established by the Committee's orders and Judge 

Newman's filed responses, along with any legal argument 

Judge Newman wishes to submit to justify her responses 

or otherwise establish "good cause shown" for her actions. 

There are no percipient fact witnesses to additional events 

that are relevant to the misconduct determination. As a 

result, the Committee currently believes that there is no 

need for a hearing pursuant to Rule 14 for the taking of 

testimony. Rule 14 itself makes clear that holding such a 

hearing is not required in every case. Instead, it states that 

the Committee "may hold hearings to take testimony and 

receive other evidence." Rule 14(a) (emphasis added). 

Where there is no need for taking live testimony, a hearing 

is not required. Similarly, although Rule 15(a)(2) states 

4 
IN RE COMPLAINT NO 23-90015 

that "[t]he subject judge may suggest additional witnesses 

to the special committee," in this case there are no witnesses who could have relevant testimony bearing on the 

narrow issue of misconduct. 

Rule 15 establishes that "[t]he subject judge may submit written argument to the special committee and must 

be given a reasonable opportunity to present oral argument 

at a reasonable stage of the investigation." Rule 15(d). As 

explained below, the Committee will receive briefing from 

Judge Newman on the misconduct question and will hear 

argument from Judge Newman's counsel. 

To the extent that Judge Newman may seek to argue 

that her conduct was justified because the Committee 

lacked a reasonable basis for ordering her to undergo examinations and to provide medical records, it may be relevant for Judge Newman to have access to the evidence on 

which the Committee based its determinations. Accordingly, concurrent with the issuance of this order, the Committee is providing Judge Newman, through counsel, all 

affidavits and deposition transcripts that the Committee 

has gathered to date. These materials-which include information on Judge Newman's lengthy delays in issuing 

opinions and her handling of far less than an active judge's 

work-provided the basis for the Committee's conclusion 

that Judge Newman should be ordered to undergo the examinations and to provide medical records. 

Counsel are once again expressly cautioned concerning 

the confidentiality obligations imposed by the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act, the Rules, and by the Committee's 

prior order. The Act states in unambiguous terms that "all 

papers, documents, and records of proceedings related to 

investigations conducted under this chapter shall be confidential and shall not be disclosed by any person." 28 U.S.C. 

§ 360(a) (emphasis added). Similarly, Rule 23(b)(l) provides that information about the Committee's

5 
IN RE COMPLAINT NO 23-90015 

consideration of a complaint "must not be publicly disclosed 

by any judge or judicial employee." The Committee has 

taken care that prior public releases do not identify any 

witnesses who have provided statements to the Committee. 

Counsel are cautioned that any public release of information that is not already public regarding the Committee's consideration of the matters before it-especially 

including the identity of any witnesses-will violate the 

Act, the Rules, and Committee's order addressing confidentiality of May 16, 2023. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

(1) By 3:00 pm, Eastern Daylight Time on July 5,

Judge Newman may submit a brief limited to addressing 

the question whether Judge Newman's refusal to undergo 

examinations, to provide medical records, and to sit for an 

interview with the Committee as described in the May 16 

Order constitute misconduct and the appropriate remedy if 

the Committee were to make a finding of misconduct; the 

letter brief may be single spaced and is limited to 25 pages; 

and, 

(2) the Committee will hear oral argument from counsel for Judge Newman on July 13, 2023 at 2:00 pm in courtroom 201. This argument will be confidential, members of 

the public will not be permitted. Counsel shall be allowed 

45 minutes for argument. 

SO ORDERED: June 1, 2023. 

6