Wniteb $>!ates <!Court of §ppeals 

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 

and also asked Judge Newman to appear for an interview 

with the Committee. This 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 simply 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 Saturday, 

May 20, four days after the May 16 order issued, counsel 

for Judge Newman submitted a letter seeking a 16-day extension of the May 23 deadline-to June 8. For the reasons 

explained below, the requested extension is denied, but a 
IN RE COMPLAINT NO 23-90015 

shorter extension is granted until 9:00 am on Friday, May 

26, 2023. 

Especially in light of the length of time the Committee's 

orders for neurological and neuro-psychological examinations and for medical records, and the Committee's request 

for an interview, have been pending, counsel has not provided any sufficient justification for the requested extension. The proffered reasons for the extension are that 

counsel is traveling abroad in Israel until June 1 and will 

be busy with family engagements during his trip, that he 

will also be busy preparing grades for students in courses 

that he teaches, and that the 7-hour time difference between Israel and Washington, D.C. makes communication 

with his client more difficult. None of these grounds provides adequate justification for delaying this proceeding. 

On April 7, 2023, the Committee first ordered Judge 

Newman to undergo neurological and neuro-psychological 

examinations. On April 17, 2023, the Committee first ordered her to provide medical records and requested that 

she appear for an interview. The examination and records 

directives were repeated in a May 3 order. Directives to 

undergo examinations and to provide records and the interview request have thus already been pending for 45 days 

and 35 days, respectively. And counsel for Judge Newman 

has been fully aware of those directives and request for at 

least a month, since April 21, when counsel's organization 

first entered an appearance in these proceedings. The May 

16 order clarifies the earlier orders in limited ways-most 

notably, by staging the neurological examination directive 

and by requiring the records to be supplied solely to the 

neurologist (not the Committee). 

As the Committee explained in its order of May 16, the 

Judicial Conduct and Disability Act declares that the Committee shall "conduct an investigation as extensive as it 

considers necessary, and shall expeditiously file a 

2 
IN RE COMPLAINT NO 23-90015 

comprehensive written report thereon with the judicial 

council." 28 U.S.C. § 353(c) (emphasis added). The Senate 

Judiciary Committee, in its report on the proposed Act, explained that it believed that the proceedings culminating 

in Judicial Council action on a complaint "should not take 

more than 90 days in the usual case." S. Rep. No. 96-362, 

at 2 (1979). Given that the Committee was appointed on 

March 24, this proceeding has been underway for almost 

60 days already. And the most significant remaining barrier to completing the investigation is the pending question 

whether Judge Newman will comply with the directives the 

Committee has issued for the specified examinations and 

for medical records. Even if Judge Newman agrees to the 

specified examinations, moreover, it will still take further 

time to schedule the examinations and receive results. Accordingly, it is important that the Committee keep this process moving forward as expeditiously as possible. 

A lengthy extension is particularly unwarranted given 

the limited nature of the response that must be provided 

by the deadline. Judge Newman is not being asked to undergo examinations, to provide records (to the neurologist), 

or sit for an interview by the May 23 deadline set in the 

May 16 order. Instead, she is merely being asked to indicate, by that deadline, whether she now agrees that she 

will do those things at a later date. Given the length of 

time that counsel has already had to consult with Judge 

Newman on these same matters, additional time is not 

warranted. And given modern communications methods, 

the Committee does not believe that a 7-hour time difference presents a substantial barrier for counsel to conduct 

whatever further consultations may be required with his 

client to come to a conclusion on whether Judge Newman 

will cooperate with the directives and request at issue. 

The Committee also notes that counsel who is travelling is not the only lawyer representing Judge Newman in 

this matter. The April 21, 2023 letter from the New Civil 

3 
IN RE COMPLAINT NO 23-90015 

Liberties Alliance was signed by another lawyer, and a 

third lawyer from the same organization has appeared as 

counsel in the lawsuit Judge Newman has filed about this 

proceeding and has responded to press inquiries regarding 

this Committee's orders. 

Finally, counsel's time commitments to academic pursuits suggest only that counsel may not have adequate time 

to represent clients in time-sensitive proceedings such as 

this. It provides no basis for the Committee to delay a proceeding that is supposed to be conducted expeditiously. 

Accordingly, the request for an extension until June 8 

is denied. To allow counsel time to communicate with 

Judge Newman after this order issues, the Committee 

grants a limited extension of three days until 9:00 am, 

Eastern Daylight Time, on Friday, May 26, 2023. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

(1) A three-day extension of the 9:00 a.m. May 23

deadline is granted, to 9:00 a.m., Eastern Daylight Time, 

on Friday, May 26, 2023; 

(2) Judge Newman is directed to inform the Committee

in writing (email is acceptable) by 9:00 am on May 26, 2023 

whether she will comply with the Committee's order of May 

16, 2023, and make herself available for the examinations 

described in that order; 

(3) Judge Newman is directed to inform the Committee in writing (email is acceptable) by 9:00 am on May 26, 

2023, whether she will provide the Committee's selected 

neurologist with medical records and a list of current medications as described in the Committee's order of May 16, 

2023; 

4 
IN RE COMPLAINT NO 23-90015 

(4) Judge Newman is directed to inform the Committee

in writing (email is acceptable) by 9:00 am on May 26, 2023 

whether she will make herself available for a video-taped 

interview with the Committee at 2:00 pm one afternoon between June 6 and June 8; and 

(5) Failure to respond by 9:00 am on May 26, 2023, to

any of the foregoing may be treated by the Committee as a 

refusal to cooperate. 

SO ORDERED: May 22, 2023. 

5