United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit

UNDER SEAL (NON-PUBLIC ORDER)

__________________________

IN RE COMPLAINT NO. 23-90015

__________________________

Before MOORE, Chief Judge.

ORDER 

By order of March 24, 2023, a special committee 

composed of Chief Judge Moore, Judge Prost, and Judge 

Taranto (the Committee) was appointed to investigate and 

report its findings and recommendations with respect to a 

complaint identified against Judge Newman. Pursuant to 

Rule 13(a) of the Rules for Judicial Conduct and Disability 

Proceedings, the Committee has received new information 

regarding additional acts of potential misconduct that it 

has referred to me. Because there is sufficient cause to 

believe that these new matters constitute misconduct 

under the Rules and may also be relevant to existing 

investigations into Judge Newman’s mental fitness, it is 

necessary and appropriate to expand the scope of the 

investigation to include these new matters.

I

The first new matter relates to Judge Newman’s 

alleged conduct toward her [chambers staff member], 

(her [chambers staff member]). On Monday, March 

6, 2023, [the Newman chambers staff member] reported to 

me that Judge Newman had disclosed sensitive medical 

information about another judge to her staff. Following 

[Newman chambers staff member]’s report, I spoke with 
IN RE COMPLAINT NO 23-90015

2

Judge Newman and her staff to ensure they understood 

Judge Newman’s disclosure was inappropriate and that 

they should not disclose the confidential information to 

anyone else. 

The Committee has been informed that, following 

my conversation with Judge Newman and her staff, Judge 

Newman allegedly took retaliatory action against [her 

chambers staff member] in response to his protected 

disclosures. Judge Newman instructed her staff to no 

longer include [her chambers staff member] in chambers’

communications, including work-related emails. Judge 

Newman also altered the scope of [her chambers staff 

member]’s duties. For example, the Committee has been 

informed that prior to Judge Newman’s directive, [her 

chambers staff member] was regularly included on all 

chambers-related communications and that reviewing 

those communications was a routine part of his job 

responsibilities. It has been reported that Judge 

Newman’s actions negatively and materially impacted the 

nature and scope of his work. 

The Committee has also been made aware of 

additional potential acts of retaliation. [Judge Newman’s 

chambers staff member] contacted , the

Court’s Director of Workplace Relations, seeking informal 

resolution of a workplace dispute regarding his complaint 

that , Judge Newman’s [employee], was 

inappropriately contacting him outside of regular 

business hours to perform work-related and personal 

tasks. As detailed in the April 6, 2023 Order, I emailed 

Judge Newman on April 4, 2023 to inform her of [her 

chambers staff member]’s concerns, to ensure Judge 

Newman would take appropriate action to address those 

concerns, and to remind her that [her chambers staff 
IN RE COMPLAINT NO 23-90015

3

member] should suffer no adverse consequences for having 

come forward. To date, I have not received a response from 

Judge Newman confirming she has taken any steps to 

address [her chambers staff member]’s concerns. In fact, 

as detailed in the April 6, 2023 Order, Judge Newman’s 

only response was an email to 95 court employees 

disclosing [her chambers staff member]’s confidential 

complaint in which she stated her concerns about her own 

case assignments were more significant than [her 

chambers staff member]’s complaint. 

Due to Judge Newman’s failure to take corrective 

actions, I spoke to [Judge Newman’s employee] about [her

chambers staff member]’s concerns on April 10, 2023. [The 

Court’s Director of Workplace Relations] also participated 

in that conversation. [Judge Newman’s employee]

asked to record the conversation, which we allowed. 

[Judge Newman’s employee] claimed that she had not

been informed about the EDR matter. We explained to 

her the concerns about late night calls and text messages 

and asked if she would agree to refrain from calls and 

texts to [the chambers staff member] outside of

business hours (8-6). [The Court’s Director of 

Workplace Relations] explained to her that emails 

related to work could be sent at any time. During the 

conversation, [Judge Newman’s employee] refused to

agree to refrain from calling and texting [the

chambers staff member] outside of business hours and 

requested more time to consider whether she would cease 

to call and text him outside of business hours. I asked 

[Judge Newman’s employee] if she would at least

agree, while she was considering the matter, to 

refrain from contacting [the chambers staff member] in

the middle of the night for a short period. She refused 

to agree to even that short-term resolution. Judge 

Newman is aware of these EDR concerns and to date, 
IN RE COMPLAINT NO 23-90015

4

[Judge Newman’s employee] has refused to agree not 

to contact [the chambers staff member] outside of normal 

business hours. 

On April 13, 2023, [Judge Newman’s chambers staff 

member] filed a formal request for Assisted Resolution 

with [the Court’s Director of Workplace Relations] 

concerning his claims that he had suffered abusive conduct 

and retaliation for his protected disclosures. [Judge 

Newman’s chambers staff member] sought interim relief in 

the form of an alternative work arrangement while those 

claims were being investigated. After reviewing [Judge 

Newman’s chambers staff member]’s request, and in 

consultation with [the Court’s Director of Workplace 

Relations], I found it appropriate to grant [Judge 

Newman’s chambers staff member]’s request for interim 

relief as permitted by the Court’s Employment Dispute 

Resolution (EDR) Plan. Accordingly, I ordered that [Judge 

Newman’s chambers staff member]’s workstation be moved 

outside of Judge Newman’s chambers until further notice 

and that Judge Newman’s staff should not contact [Judge 

Newman’s chambers staff member] outside of business 

hours. The interim relief did not prevent Judge Newman 

from contacting [her staff member] at any time for any 

matter. I also informed Judge Newman that, apart from 

relocation of his workstation, [Judge Newman’s chambers 

staff member] would continue to perform his current job 

duties. I informed Judge Newman of the interim relief via 

email on April 14, 2023, as shown below: 

IN RE COMPLAINT NO 23-90015

6

promote workplace civility, prevent harassament or 

abusive conduct, and to take appropriate action upon 

receipt of reliable information indicating a likelihood of 

wrongful conduct under th[e] Plan.” No cooperation 

from Judge Newman or [Judge Newman’s employee] on

either matter has occurred. The information provided to 

the Committee suggests Judge Newman has not taken 

any steps to fulfill her duty to resolve [her chambers staff 

member]’s concerns. 

On April 19, 2023, the Committee was informed that 

at 9:30 am, directly contrary to the interim relief [Judge 

Newman’s chambers staff member] requested and ordered 

pursuant to the EDR process, Judge Newman demanded 

[her chamebrs staff member] return to his workstation in 

her chambers by 11:00 am and that if he failed to do so she 

would construe his failure as an immediate resignation. 

The Committee has also been informed that Judge 

Newman has made inappropriate and unprofessional 

statements to other court staff regarding [her chambers 

staff member]. Specifically, on April 18, 2023, Judge 

Newman expressed frustation over [her chambers staff 

member] answering the chambers phone lines including 

her phone line, which had at all times been part of his 

normal job duties. She then informed the IT Staff of her 

intention to have [her chambers staff member] removed 

from the building and arrested. Judge Newman ended the 

conversation by threatening litigation at the Supreme 

Court and suggesting that all of this would be on the front 

page of the Washington Post. 

Based on the information presented to the 

Committee, there is probable cause to believe that Judge 

Newman’s retaliatory statements and conduct toward and 

about [her chambers staff member]—including (1) taking 
IN RE COMPLAINT NO 23-90015

7

retaliatory action in response to [her chambers staff 

member]’s protected disclosures; (2) failing to 

personally cooperate, or to ensure [Judge Newman’s 

employee]’s cooperation, in resolving [her chambers

staff member]’s EDR matter; (3) threatening to have 

[her chambers staff member] removed and arrested; 

and (4) demanding that [her chambers staff member] 

return to chambers in contravention of the ordered 

interim relief—have negatively and materially impacted 

the nature and scope of [Judge Newman’s chambers 

staff member]’s employment and may constitute 

misconduct. This information may also be relevant 

to the Committee’s existing investigation into Judge 

Newman’s mental fitness. 

II 

 The second new matter brought to the Committee’s 

attention relates to Judge Newman’s alleged conduct 

toward one of her law clerks (Law Clerk). It has 

been reported to the Committee that after the Judicial 

Conduct and Disability proceeding against Judge 

Newman was initiated, Judge Newman tasked her law 

clerks to work on her defense. Law Clerk communicated 

to Judge Newman that Law Clerk was uncomfortable 

participating in her defense because it is a personal 

matter outside the scope of a clerk’s duties. Law Clerk 

informed the Committee that Law Clerk felt it was 

necessary to telework to avoid the stress and drama in 

Judge Newman’s chambers. 

Law Clerk informed the Committee of the 

following: He had previously been made aware of the 

EDR matter involving [Judge Newman’s chambers staff 

member]. On April 18, 2023, Judge Newman required 

Law Clerk to participate in an in-person meeting. 

After learning that the meeting was about [Judge 

Newman’s chambers staff member], Law Clerk asked 

not to participate in the meeting and to be loaned to
IN RE COMPLAINT NO 23-90015

8

another chambers. Law Clerk reported that Judge 

Newman declined and required his participation. 

During Judge Newman’s discussion of [her chambers 

staff member], Law Clerk again requested to be 

reassigned to work with a different judge because working 

in Judge Newman’s chambers was impairing Law Clerk’s

ability to complete case-related work and was harmful to 

Law Clerk’s Judge Newman indicated that 

she would not loan him to another judge because the optics 

would be damaging to her. Judge Newman informed Law 

Clerk that his only options were to stay or resign. 

Based on the information presented to the Committee, 

there is probable cause to believe that Judge Newman’s has 

engaged in conduct prejudicial to the effective and 

expedidious administration of the business of the courts. 

This information may also be relevant to the Committee’s 

existing investigation into Judge Newman’s mental fitness.

III

The third new matter relates to Judge Newman’s 

alleged conduct towards the Court’s IT Department. The 

IT staff informed the Committee of the following: On April 

17, 2023, Judge Newman called the IT Department and 

accused the Court of deleting her emails and files and 

monitoring and hacking her computer. She further 

expressed concern about her phone and that the court was 

interfering with the mail at her personal residence. When 

asked to provide more details related to these allegations 

so that the IT staff could assist in ascertaining whether any 

electronic devices were compromised, Judge Newman 

refused because she believed the Court was responsible. IT 

staff reported that Judge Newman sounded annoyed, 

agitated, paranoid and upset. Staff further reported that 

her communications were nonsensical because there was 
IN RE COMPLAINT NO 23-90015

9

no basis for the allegations. Judge Newman then made 

vague threats of litigation. Staff described her as being in 

attack mode. 

The IT staff reported to the Committee that the 

following events occurred on April 18, 2023: 

Judge Newman’s staff contacted the IT Department 

concerned that something was wrong with Judge 

Newman’s phone system. The only thing determined to be 

wrong with the phone system was that the volume was 

turned down on Judge Newman’s phone. After the volume 

was turned up, the IT staff called Judge Newman to ensure 

that she could hear the phone ring. She answered and was 

able to hear the staff. During that conversation, Judge 

Newman informed the IT staff that they still needed to fix 

the phone systems. She then informed the IT staff about 

her frustration with [her chambers staff member] who was 

answering the chambers’ phones, a regular part of his job. 

She told the staff that she was going to have [her chambers 

staff member] removed from the building and arrested. 

She ended the conversation by threatening litigation at the 

Supreme Court and suggesting that all of this would be on 

the front page of the Washington Post. Staff described the 

call as bizarre and unnecessarily hostile toward [Judge

Newman’s chambers staff member]. 

Based on the information presented to the 

Committee, there is probable cause to believe that Judge 

Newman has engaged in misconduct and may suffer an 

impairment of cognitive abilities that renders her unable 

to function effectively in discharging her duties. 

IV

Judicial misconduct is defined as “conduct 

prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration 
IN RE COMPLAINT NO 23-90015

10

of the business of the courts.” 28 U.S.C. § 351(a). 

Misconduct includes, but is not limited to, “treating . . . 

judicial employees . . . in a demonstrably egregious and 

hostile manner,” “creating a hostile work environment for 

judicial employees,” retaliating against an employee for 

exercising his rights under the Court’s EDR plan, and “for 

reporting or disclosing judicial misconduct.” Rules 

4(a)(2)(B) and (C), and 4(a)(4).

In addition, the Code of Conduct for United States 

Judges (the Code), which is instructive in determining 

whether a judge’s conduct constitutes judicial misconduct, 

provides that: (1) “[a] judge should respect and comply with 

the law and should act at all times in a manner that 

promotes public confidence in the integrity and 

impartiality of the judiciary,” Canon 2A of the Code; (2) “[a] 

judge should diligently discharge administrative 

responsibilities, maintain professional competence in 

judicial administration, and facilitate the performance of 

the administrative responsibilities of other judges and 

court personnel,” Canon 3B(1); and (3) “[a] judge should 

practice civility, by being patient, dignified, respectful, and 

courteous in dealing with court personnel, including 

chambers staff. A judge should not engage in any form of 

harassment of court personnel. A judge should not 

retaliate against those who report misconduct. A judge 

should hold court personnel under the judge’s direction to 

similar standards,” Canon 3B(4).

Based on the information communicated to the 

Committee by the above mentioned individuals, there is 

probable cause to believe that Judge Newman’s alleged 

retaliatory, unprofessional, and abusive behavior towards 

her own and other court staff may constitute additional 

misconduct and may also be relevant to matters already 
IN RE COMPLAINT NO 23-90015

11

under investigation identified in previous orders, including 

but not limited to concerns about Judge Newman’s mental 

fitness to discharge the duties of her office. Pursuant to 

Rules 5, 11, and 13(a), the scope of the investigation is 

hereby expanded to include an investigation into the 

newly-identified matters described herein. The clerk shall 

transmit a copy of this order to Judge Newman. See Rule 

15(a)(1)(B).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Kimberly A. Moore

Date Kimberly A. Moore

Chief Judge