1225 19th Street NW Suite 450, Washington DC 20036 (202) 869-5210 www.NCLAlegal.org

July 12, 2023

The Honorable the Members of the Special Committee of the 

Judicial Council for the Federal Circuit

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

717 Madison Place, N.W.

Washington, DC 20439

VIA EMAIL

Re: In re Complaint No. 23-90015 (Complaint Against Circuit Judge Pauline Newman)

Your Honors:

This letter responds to the Special Committee’s Order of July 7, 2023, which directed Judge 

Newman’s counsel to “submit to the Committee: (1) an unredacted copy of the report from Dr. 

Rothstein referred to on page 2 of the July 5 Letter Brief; (2) a copy of the actual MOCA [Montreal 

Cognitive Assessment] test administered to Judge Newman, showing all notations of scores on each 

subpart and the signature of the person who administered the test; and (3) a list and a copy of all 

written materials provided to, or consulted by, Dr. Rothstein to inform his evaluation of Judge 

Newman.” July 7 Order at 3-4.1 We are also responding to the Special Committee Order of July 11, 

2023 which prohibited the New Civil Liberties Alliance’s Summer Associates and Judge Newman’s 

law clerks from attending the hearing.

I.

With respect to the Special Committee’s July 7 Order, we are somewhat at a loss as to what 

relevance any of these materials has to a hearing that, by Special Committee’s own orders of June 1, 

2023, and June 20, 2023, will focus exclusively on the question “whether Judge Newman’s refusal to 

comply with the Committee’s orders seeking (i) neurological and neuropsychological testing, (ii) 

medical records, and (iii) an interview constitutes misconduct.” June 20 Order at 4; see also June 1 

Order at 3-6. We also find it odd for the Special Committee to request that counsel submit documents 

1 As with all other submissions to the Special Committee, and pursuant to Rule 23(b)(7) of Rules for 

Judicial-Conduct and Judicial-Disability Proceedings, we respectfully request, and Judge Newman 

explicitly consents to, the public release of this letter, the Letter Brief of July 5, 2023, the Special 

Committee’s Orders of July 7, 2023, and July 11, 2023, and any Order or other response to the present 

submission.
2 | N C L A

that are either publicly available or else already in the Special Committee’s possession. See July 7 Order 

at 1-2 (noting “Judge Newman has already made an unredacted copy of Dr. Rothstein’s report available 

to the Committee.”) (emphasis in original). Nevertheless, in hopes of bringing this saga to a speedier 

conclusion, but consistent with our previous objections, we are providing, to the extent possible and 

appropriate, the documents requested by the Committee.

First, we are providing, as requested, an unredacted copy of Dr. Rothstein’s letter. Exh. A 

(filed under seal). The Special Committee is only authorized and requested to release the previously 

provided redacted version, as the unredacted version contains sensitive medical information, albeit

irrelevant to the present investigation. Second, we are providing (though these documents are publicly 

available and easily obtainable) the articles by Professor Andrew Michaels at the University of Houston 

Law School, Exh. B, as well as an article in the Washington Post, Exh. C, that the Special Committee 

referenced. See July 7 Order at 3.

We are, however, respectfully declining to provide any other documents. With respect to the 

medical records considered by Dr. Rothstein, the Special Committee (once again) “has not explained 

why it believes that these records are relevant to its investigatory and deliberative processes.” May 9, 

2023 Letter from Gregory Dolin to the Special Committee at 4. Instead, it peremptorily asserted that 

it “believes that further information is required for the Committee to be able to assess the significance 

of Dr. Rothstein’s report for these proceedings.” July 7 Order at 2 (emphasis added). No basis for 

this “belief” has been stated. The Committee does not challenge Dr. Rothstein’s credentials or assert 

that Dr. Rothstein, despite his decades of experience, somehow did shoddy work. Instead, it appears 

that the Special Committee is simply requesting medical records that Judge Newman has already, and 

with good cause, declined to provide. On this issue, we intend to stand on our prior submissions. 

Furthermore, in its order of May 16, 2023, the Committee specified that “Judge Newman need 

not supply such records to the Committee itself but only to the neurologist whom the Committee has 

selected to conduct an evaluation of Judge Newman.” May 16 Order at 6. The Committee has given 

no reason to deviate from this approach now. Dr. Rothstein received such records as he considered, 

in his professional judgment, necessary, and the Special Committee has no basis or expertise to 

second-guess the sufficiency of Dr. Rothstein’s evaluations. To the extent that the Committee wishes 

that the professionals that it retained review the medical records, we refer the Committee to our prior 

position objecting to any evaluations by the Committee’s supposed “experts.” See July 5, 2023 Letter 

Brief at 3, 14. We are not willing to deviate from that principled position.

Nor does Judge Newman agree to provide “a copy of the actual MOCA test administered to 

Judge Newman, showing all notations of scores on each subpart and the signature of the person who 

administered the test.” The letter prepared by Dr. Rothstein provides detailed information as to which 

parts of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment examination were and were not administered to Judge 

Newman. Specifically at the top of page 2, Dr. Rothstein notes that because Judge Newman is 

temporarily “unable to write and therefore cannot follow trail or draw a cube (each worth one point 

on the 30 point test)” those two, and only those two questions were omitted. Thus, instead of scoring 

the test out of 30 possible points, Judge Newman’s test was scored out of 28 points. In the very same 

paragraph, Dr. Rothstein reports that but for “failing to remember 4 of 5 words after several minutes 

... [a]ll other aspects of the tests were precise and correct.” It is hard to understand, and the 

Committee does not explain, what additional information the Special Committee (with its lack of 
3 | N C L A

medical expertise) expects to glean from “the actual MOCA test administered to Judge Newman, 

showing all notations of scores on each subpart and the signature of the person who administered the 

test.” To the extent that the Special Committee wishes to have its own hired medical professionals 

re-evaluate Dr. Rothstein’s work, for reasons previously stated, we object to such proceedings, and 

will not facilitate them.

II.

Turning our attention to the order of July 11, 2023, we object to the Special Committee’s 

unwarranted and baseless exclusion of the members of the NCLA’s legal team from these proceedings. 

It is up to the attorneys and not administrative bodies (which the Judicial Council and its committees 

are, see Chandler v. Jud. Council of Tenth Cir. of U. S., 398 U.S. 74, 86 n.7 (1970)) to decide how to staff 

cases. Attorneys routinely rely on staff to assist their work, including secretaries, administrative 

assistants, paralegals, and the like. All such individuals, whether or not members of the bar, are bound 

by the same requirements of confidentiality and have the same fiduciary duty to their clients. So too 

with our Summer Associates, who aid our work as attorneys by providing legal research and in other 

ways. Excluding members of our team from the hearing hampers our ability to represent Judge 

Newman and is unwarranted and not legally supportable.2 Much the same applies to the Committee’s 

decision to exclude Judge Newman’s chambers staff from the hearing. These staff, though they do 

not serve as attorneys for Judge Newman, are in a position to know (and if necessary challenge) various 

allegations including Judge Newman’s alleged delays, disclosure of allegedly confidential medical 

information about another judge, and the like. There is no basis to exclude the people on whom Judge 

Newman (like all other federal judges) relies to help with legal research from these proceedings. The 

Committee’s most recent order further undermines confidence in its ability to adjudicate this matter 

in an objective and unbiased manner. We respectfully request that the Special Committee reconsider 

that portion of the July 11 Order which barred the attendance of NCLA’s Summer Associates and 

Judge Newman’s chamber staff. Furthermore, we respectfully request that we either be permitted to 

audio record the hearing or that an unedited recording of the hearing be provided to us as soon as 

technologically feasible following the hearing’s conclusion.

*****

We wish to close by commending to the Special Committee’s attention another publicly 

available article recently published by the Hon. Paul R. Michel, the former Chief Judge of the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Judge Michel (whose devotion to the rule of law and this 

Court are above reproach) says what Judge Newman has been saying all along—a situation where “the 

Chief Judge and the Special Committee are continuing to act as accuser, investigator, prosecutor, and 

judge ... would not be acceptable in any other circumstance, and [he is] hard-pressed to see how it 

can be acceptable here.” Paul R. Michel, Chief Judge Moore v. Judge Newman: An Unacceptable Breakdown 

of Court Governance, Collegiality and Procedural Fairness, IPWatchdog.com, https://tinyurl.com/3v3ay4uf

(July 9, 2023), Exh. D. As NCLA has been saying from the very beginning, “transferring the 

investigation to the judicial council of a different circuit court seems most preferable, as opposed to 

continuing the horrific battle now raging in which everyone involved is getting further tarnished, 

2 Of course, to the extent required, all members of Judge Newman’s legal team are willing to sign

appropriate confidentiality documents.
4 | N C L A

including the court itself.” Id. at 5. Former Chief Judge Randall R. Rader, echoed Judge Michel’s 

sentiments in his comments on Judge Michel’s article. Id. at 6-7. When two former Chief Judges of 

this Court have joined the unanimous chorus of legal ethicists who have called for this matter to be 

transferred, it is time for the Chief Judge, this Committee, and the Judicial Council to listen. 

So, on behalf of Judge Newman, we once again call on Chief Judge Moore, the Special 

Committee, and the Judicial Council of the Federal Circuit to “end this to save the Court,” id. at 5, 

restore Judge Newman to full participation in court panels immediately, and provide due process to 

Judge Newman by either ending this unnecessary investigation or else transferring it to another judicial 

council for resolution. 

 

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Gregory Dolin,M.D.

Senior Litigation Counsel

NEW CIVIL LIBERTIES ALLIANCE
Exhibit A
SEALED

Unredacted Report by 

Prof. Ted Rothstein, M.D.

(Provided as a Separate 

Document)
Exhibit B
Judge Newman's Recent Dissents Show She Is Fit For Service

By Andrew Michaels (June 6, 2023)

In recent months, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal 

Circuit has instituted proceedings against Judge Pauline Newman 

under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act, attempting to forcibly 

remove her from Article III service. The complaint claims that she 

"'has engaged in conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious 

administration of the business of the courts' and/or 'is unable to 

discharge all the duties of office by reason of mental or physical 

disability.'"[1]

The complaint faults Judge Newman for writing quantitatively fewer 

than average majority opinions, despite the fact that the court had at 

its own volition reduced her caseload, and importantly, without mentioning her numerous 

dissenting opinions.

Almost two-thirds of Judge Newman's legal opinions over the past year have been dissents. 

If the charge is that Judge Newman is not carrying her share of the workload, excluding her 

dissents from consideration is inappropriate.

The Constitution's grant of lifetime tenure for Article III judges is for good reason not made 

contingent on them agreeing with their colleagues. The fact that a judge may frequently 

dissent is itself no basis for removal, and the standard for involuntarily removing any Article 

III judge from service should be high.

Moreover, Judge Newman's role as a frequently dissenting voice on the Federal Circuit is not 

new, and has rightly been celebrated as an important one, particularly in light of the fact 

that the Federal Circuit has exclusive subject matter jurisdiction in patent law and thus does 

not benefit from the various viewpoints of conflicting circuit courts.[2]

Indeed, the U.S. Supreme Court has at times apparently been influenced by Judge 

Newman's dissents, citing them while reversing the Federal Circuit, for example in the 

consequential patent cases SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu, and Commil USA LLC v. Cisco 

Systems Inc., in 2018 and 2015, respectively.[3]

This article will provide a qualitative analysis of Judge Newman's legal opinions over the 

past year, focusing primarily on some of her dissenting opinions. Judge Newman has issued 

at least 17 opinions in the past year, including six dissents in intellectual property cases.

The question here is not whether one agrees with Judge Newman. The relevant question 

should be whether her opinions indicate that she is so obviously unfit for service that she 

can be forcibly removed from her constitutionally protected role in judicial office.

I clerked for Judge Newman from 2010-2012, and based on the below analysis, I personally 

do not perceive a significant drop in the quality or thoroughness of her opinions over the 

past decade. But perhaps more to the point, nothing about Judge Newman's recent opinions 

suggests that she is no longer able to perform the duties of her judicial office.

Andrew Michaels
Ethanol Boosting Systems v. Ford Motor

In the July 18, 2022, Ethanol Boosting Systems LLC v. Ford Motor Co. decision, Judge 

Newman disagreed with the majority on a patent claim construction issue, arguing forcefully 

that the majority gave insufficient weight to the context of the patent's specification.[4]

It has long been recognized that there is a tension in patent law between on the one hand, 

not reading limitations into patent claims that are not present in the claims themselves, and 

on the other hand, interpreting claims in light of the patent's specification.[5] This tension 

can and does often lead to disputes about how to best interpret a patent claim.

In Ethanol, the district court had construed the patent claims in light of the specification, 

including consideration of the patent's title "Optimized Fuel Management System for Direct 

Injection Ethanol Enhancement of Gasoline Engines," to require that the direct fuel injection 

system used a mixture of gasoline and ethanol.

Judge Newman agreed with the district court, including on the point that the title of the 

patent "is a factor in the construction of claims." But the panel majority disagreed, reversing 

the district court and finding that "the patents' titles do not support the district court's 

imported claim requirement of two different fuels."[6]

In Judge Newman's characteristically well-researched and persuasively written dissent, she 

cites and discusses various Federal Circuit cases where the title of the patent was in fact 

used as an interpretive aid in construing the patent's claims.[7] Reasonable people could 

disagree about the correct claim construction in this case, as they can on many claim 

construction issues, but Judge Newman's position — which was shared by the district court 

— is not an unreasonable one.

LG Electronics v. Immervision

The LG Electronics Inc. v. Immervision Inc. case presented the interesting and unusual 

issue of whether a prior art reference should be excluded from consideration because it 

contained a typographical error.[8] The appeal was from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, 

which in inter partes review proceedings had excluded certain prior art for containing 

typographical errors.

To find the applicable legal standard, given the rarity of this issue, the court was forced to 

reach back to the 1970 U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals case of In re: Yale, which

held that where a prior art a prior art reference includes an obvious error of a 

typographical or similar nature that would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the 

art who would mentally disregard the errant information as a misprint or mentally 

substitute it for the correct information, the errant information cannot be said to 

disclose subject matter.[9]

The PTAB concluded that "the aspheric coefficients in Tada's Table 5 were an obvious error 

of a typographical or similar nature that would have been apparent to a skilled artisan," and 

the panel majority found this to be supported.

Although agreeing with the majority about the relevant legal standard, Judge Newman was 

of the view that the standard had not been met in this case, stating in the July 11, 2022, 

decision that she "cannot agree that this error is typographical or similar in nature, for its 

existence was not discovered until an expert witness conducted a dozen hours of 
experimentation and calculation."[10]

Thus, in Judge Newman's view, this error was not one that would have been readily 

apparent to a reader of ordinary skill in the art, as required by the Yale standard.

Judge Newman's opinion goes into meticulous detail about the history of the patent at issue 

and the complex process by which the allegedly obvious error was finally discovered by an 

expert witness, citing to various parts of the expert's deposition, as well as various other 

documents from the IPR record before the PTAB.[11]

Again, this seems like an issue on which reasonable minds could disagree, but Judge 

Newman's opinion is reasonable and thorough.

POP Top Corp. v. Rakuten Kobo Inc.

In the July 14, 2022, POP Top Corp. v. Rakuten Kobo Inc. decision, the panel majority found 

that the patent plaintiff's appeal was frivolous and that the arguments advanced by counsel 

on appeal were baseless, sanctioning the plaintiffs by awarding over $100,000 in fees and 

costs to the defendant, and even holding the plaintiff's counsel jointly and severally liable 

for the sanctions award.[12]

Judge Newman persuasively dissented from this rather extreme sanction to the attorneys, 

explaining that the "United States has continually rejected the 'loser pays' philosophy of 

many countries," citing and discussing various cases elaborating on this principle.[13]

Judge Newman agreed that the plaintiffs "did not have a winning case," but in her view, the 

"judicial burden of reviewing a weak appeal or receiving one-sided argumentation does not

warrant the sanction of award of attorneys' fees," for the "right of appellate review applies 

even for weak cases."

Although she agreed that sanctions may sometimes be appropriate, "as for deliberate 

misstatements or intentional misrepresentation," Judge Newman's well-researched dissent 

pointed out that other Federal Circuit panels have shared the concern that "sanctions should 

not be imposed so freely as to make parties with legitimately appealable issues hesitant to 

come before an appellate court."[14]

SAS Institute v. World Programming

The April 6 SAS Institute Inc. v. World Programming Ltd. decision involved a claim for 

software copyright infringement. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of 

Texas determined that the plaintiff failed to establish copyrightability of the allegedly 

protected software elements, and the panel majority agreed.[15]

Judge Newman disagreed with the holding of uncopyrightability. Her lengthy dissent 

detailed the legislative history of Congress' determination that software programs were 

subject to copyright protection, as codified in the 1976 and 1980 amendments to the 

Copyright Act.

Judge Newman's dissent discussed many cases supporting the notion that the "selection and 

arrangement," or "choice and ordering" of known elements may be a proper subject of 

copyright protection.[16]

In Judge Newman's view, the defendant had not met its burden to prove uncopyrightability, 
and the merger and scenes a faire doctrines did not apply because the allegedly copyright 

protected code did not contain the only way of expressing the idea at issue.[17]

Judge Newman also pointed out the unfairness inherent in the district court's decision to 

find uncopyrightability established by the defendant's expert testimony because it was 

unrebutted, after the court had excluded the plaintiff's expert's testimony on the issue in its 

entirety.

Other Recent Opinions by Judge Newman

Aside from the four opinions discussed above, Judge Newman has authored over a dozen 

additional opinions in the past year, including two additional dissents in patent cases: one a 

well-researched dissent on a jurisdictional issue in the Dec. 29, 2022, Modern Font 

Applications LLC v. Alaska Airlines Inc. decision[18] and the other on the notoriously 

disputable issue of patent nonobviousness in the March 31 Roku Inc. v. Universal Electronics 

Inc.[19]

She has also authored five dissents in non-IP cases, including a rigorous and technically 

detailed Aug 30, 2022, dissent in a tax case, Bishay v. United States, and a substantial and 

lucid dissent issued just this month in Department of Transportation v. Eagle Peak Rock & 

Paving, an appeal from the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals, where Judge Newman argued 

that the majority should have simply affirmed the board decision rather than send the case 

back to the Board "for redetermination of the same issue on the same record – to the delay, 

burden, and cost of both sides."[20]

Additionally, Judge Newman has authored at least six majority opinions in the past year, 

including a unanimous precedential Aug. 29, 2022, opinion reversing the Court of 

International Trade on an issue of statutory interpretation in YC Rubber Co. v. United 

States.[21]

Conclusion

Whether one agrees with Judge Newman or not, it would be difficult to argue that her legal 

opinions over the past year are of sub-par quality, and nearly impossible to argue that they 

are so clearly deficient as to justify forcible removal from constitutionally protected office.

Beyond the legal opinions she has written in the past year, it also seems worth noting that 

Judge Newman authored the lead article in the March 2023 issue of the American 

Intellectual Property Law Association Quarterly Law Journal, titled "The Birth of the Federal 

Circuit."[22]

Judge Newman was herself involved in the creation of the Federal Circuit, and has 

undeniably been a leading voice on the court since being the first judge directly appointed 

to it in 1984.

One might think that Judge Newman's long-standing exemplary service to this institution 

that she helped to create should entitle her to some degree of respect from the institution's 

current members, absent some egregious misconduct or clear inability to continue.

Yet that very institution charges ahead with its Kafkaesque investigation; the focus now 

apparently having shifted to Judge Newman's alleged failure to sufficiently cooperate with 

the investigation itself.[23]
The Constitution's guarantee of lifetime service for Article III judges during good behavior 

was meant precisely to ensure that judges are of independent mind; that they have the 

freedom to decide disputes in whatever way best comports with their earnest view of the 

law and facts of each case, even if that may be contrary to majority view.[24]

And whatever else one might say about Judge Newman, she remains as she has always 

been: of independent mind.

Andrew C. Michaels is an assistant professor of law at the University of Houston Law Center.

The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views 

of their employer, its clients, or Portfolio Media Inc., or any of its or their respective 

affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and 

should not be taken as legal advice.

[1] See In Re Complaint No. 23-90015 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 24, 2023).

[2] See, e.g., Darryl Lim, I Dissent: The Federal Circuit's 'Great Dissenter,' Her Influence on 

the Patent Dialogue, and Why It Matters, 19 Vand. J. Ent. & Tech. 873 (2017).

[3] See SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1354 (2018) (reversing the Federal Circuit 

on an issue of statutory interpretation relating to inter partes review, noting the "vigorous 

dissent by Judge Newman"); Commil USA LLC v. Cisco Sys., 575 U.S. 632, 638, 644 (2015) 

(quoting and agreeing with Judge Newman's dissent on the point that "a defendant's goodfaith belief in a patent's invalidity is not a defense to induced infringement").

[4] Ethanol Boosting Sys. LLC v. Ford Motor Co., 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 19701 (Fed. Cir. 

2022).

[5] See, e.g., Phillis v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) ("we 

recognize that the distinction between using the specification to interpret the meaning of a 

claim and importing limitations from the specification into the claim can be a difficult one to 

apply in practice"); id. at 1328-29 (Lourie, J., concurring) ("claims need not necessarily be 

limited to specific or preferred embodiments in the specification, although they are limited 

to what is contained in the overall disclosure of the specification").

[6] Ethanol Boosting, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 19701 at *8.

[7] Id. at *12 (Newman, J., dissenting).

[8] LG Elecs. Inc. v. Immervision Inc., 39 F. 4th 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2022).

[9] Id. at 1372 (citing In re Yale, 434 F.2d 666, 669 (C.C.P.A. 1970)).

[10] Id. at 1374.

[11] Id. at 1376.

[12] POP Top Corp. v. Rakuten Kobo Inc., 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 19408 (Fed. Cir. 2022).

[13] Id. at *6-7 (Newman, J., dissenting).
[14] Id. at *7 (quoting Finch v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 926 F.2d 1574, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1991)).

[15] SAS Inst. Inc. v. World Programming Ltd., 64 F.4th 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2023).

[16] Id. at 1337-38 (Newman, J., dissenting).

[17] Id. at 1340-41.

[18] Mod. Font Applications LLC v. Alaska Airlines Inc., 56 F. 4th 981, 987 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 

29, 2022) (Newman, J., dissenting) ("the question concerning this particular protective 

order is within our jurisdiction and subject to our discretion to review and resolve").

[19] Roku Inc. v. Universal Elecs. Inc., 63 F. 4th 1319, 1326 (Mar. 31, 2023) (Newman, J., 

dissenting); see also Kirsch Mfg. Co. v. Gould Mersereau Co., 6. F.2d 793, 794 (2nd Cir. 

1925) (L. Hand, J.) ("There comes a point when the question must be resolved by a 

subjective opinion as to what seems and easy step and what does not.").

[20] Department of Transportation v. Eagle Rock & Paving, Inc., No. 21-1837, *1, 13 (Fed. 

Cir. June 6, 2023) (Newman, J., dissenting) ("There is no need to repeat this administrative 

proceeding, for the record is complete, both sides have been fully and fairly heard, and the 

Board has explained the reasons for its determination."); Bishay v. United States, 2022 U.S. 

App. LEXIS 24399, *12-24 (Aug. 30, 2022) (Newman, J., dissenting) ("The court today 

expels Mr. Bahig Bishay from the fourth court in which he has sought review of a lien that 

the IRS placed on his property in 2013."); see also Cal. Steel Indus. v. United States, 48 F. 

4th 1366 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 8, 2022); May v. McDonough, 61 F. 4th 963 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 6, 

2023); Rudisill v. McDonough, 55 F.4th 879 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 15, 2022).

[21] See YC Rubber Co. (N. Am.) LLC v. United States, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 24259, *9 

(Aug. 29, 2022) ("We conclude that Commerce's interpretation is contrary to the statute's 

unambiguous language."); see also Chae v. Yellen, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 9925 (Fed. Cir. 

Apr. 25, 2023); Gonzalez v. McDonough, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 22395 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 12, 

2022); Hawkins v. United States, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 23359 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 22, 

2022); Hyundai Elec. & Energy Sys. v. United States, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 22235 (Fed. 

Cir. Aug. 11, 2022); Military-Veterans Advocacy Inc. v. Sec'y of Veterans Affs., 63 F. 4th 

935 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 22, 2023).

[22] Judge Pauline Newman, The Birth of the Federal Circuit, 50.4 AIPLA Q. J. 1 (2023).

[23] See In Re Complaint No. 23-90015, at *3 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 24, 2023) (Fed. Cir. June 1, 

2023) ("Accordingly, the Committee investigation will focus on the question of whether 

Judge Newman's refusal to cooperate with the Committee's investigation constitutes 

misconduct.").

[24] See, e.g., Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 78 (1788) ("The standard of good 

behavior for the continuance in office of the judicial magistracy, is certainly one of the most 

valuable of the modern improvements in the practice of government. In a monarchy it is an 

excellent barrier to the despotism of the prince; in a republic it is no less excellent barrier to 

the encroachments and oppressions of the representative body.").
Exhibit C






Exhibit D