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

Pursuant to Rule 5 of the Rules for Judicial-Conduct 

and Judicial-Disability Proceedings, I identify a judicial 

complaint against Judge Pauline Newman under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act. I do so having found probable cause to believe that Judge Newman “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.” 28 U.S.C. § 351(a). 

In the summer of 2021, Judge Newman, at the age of 

94, was and having to . Because those

health issues rendered Judge Newman unable to discharge 

the duties of an active circuit judge, Judge Newman agreed 

to being taken off motion panels, which are a routine responsibility of all active judges and her sittings were reduced compared to her colleagues. While Judge Newman

was able to recover to the point of being able to again participate at oral argument, on , 2022, Judge Newman

fainted following an argument and was unable to walk 

without assistance. Following that event, Judge Newman

agreed to further reduction in sittings. 

Approved for public release 

by the Judicial Council for 

the Federal Circuit on April 

14, 2023. Refer to the 

court's website for 

additional information.
IN RE COMPLAINT NO 23-90015 2

Despite these reductions in workload, judges and staff 

have brought to my attention concerns about Judge Newman’s inability to perform the work of an active judge 

based on their personal experience. Judges and staff have 

reported extensive delays in the processing and resolution 

of cases. Concerns have also been raised that Judge Newman may suffer from impairment of cognitive abilities (i.e., 

attention, focus, confusion and memory) that render Judge 

Newman unable to function effectively in discharging caserelated and administrative duties. It has been stated that 

Judge Newman routinely makes statements in open court 

and during deliberative proceedings that demonstrate a 

clear lack of awareness over the issues in the cases. These 

concerns were communicated directly to Judge Newman by 

several judges on March 7, 2023. On March 9, 2023, another judge met with Judge Newman to articulate concerns 

and urged her to consider senior status. [That judge] reported that she became angry and ended the meeting. That 

judge followed up with an email to Judge Newman and myself detailing concerns on March 14, 2023. Judge Newman did not respond. Several other judges have reported 

to me that they sought to meet with Judge Newman to express their concerns, but she has not responded to their 

calls or emails. 

After concluding that the information provided me constituted reasonable grounds for inquiry into whether Judge 

Newman has engaged in misconduct or has a disability, I 

conducted a limited inquiry and was informed of the following additional information: 

• From June 2022 to the present, Judge Newman participated in only 60 cases whereas the average active 

judge participated in 116. Judge Newman’s case 

participation during this period was approximately 

3.5 standard deviations below the mean.
IN RE COMPLAINT NO 23-90015

• From October 2020 to September 2021, the average 

total number of majority opinions authored by active 

judges (who were present during that period) was 

39.5. Judge Newman authored 9 opinions. The next 

closest judge authored 34 opinions. During this period, the average time between assignment of a case 

to an authoring judge and issuance of the opinion 

was 70 days. Judge Newman’s average time after 

assignment to issuance of an opinion was 249 days.

• From October 2021 to the present, Judge Newman 

authored only 8 majority opinions whereas the average active judge on the court during this same time 

authored 51. The next closest judge authored 42. 

During this period the average time between assignment of a case to an authoring judge and issuance of 

the opinion was 60 days. Judge Newman’s average 

time after assignment to issuance of an opinion was 

199 days. 

• Our court rules require judges to vote on other 

judges’ opinions within 5 business days and suggest 

“voting be given priority in each chambers over other 

matters.” Federal Circuit Clerical Procedures #3, 

¶ 7. It has been reported by judges and court staff 

that Judge Newman frequently takes 30 days or 

more to vote on colleagues’ opinions. 

• Despite the reduction in Judge Newman’s caseload

since at least 2022, her time to issuance has 

not improved. For example, as of September 30,

2022, Judge Newman had only three cases pending, 

all of which were older than 90 days. One of those 

cases was not circulated until 2023, 

452 days after submission. It was reported that the 

opinion had to be substantially rewritten by her 

panel members prior to its issuance. The other two 
IN RE COMPLAINT NO 23-90015 4

ultimately were reassigned to 

other judges after extremely lengthy delays. 

There have also been a number of cases which had to 

be reassigned after lengthy delays:

• Judge Newman assigned herself

, a pro se submitted case, on 

, 2020. The case was reassigned to 

on , 2022, after it had been pending for 624 

days. After reassignment to , the case 

was resolved [within one month]. 

• Judge Newman assigned herself

, an argued case, on , 

2020. The case was reassigned to on 

, 2021, after it had been pending for 380 days.

• Judge Newman assigned herself

, a pro se submitted case, on 

, 2022. The case was reassigned to on 

, 2023, after it had been pending 374 

days. After reassignment to , the case 

was resolved in just three days. 

• Judge Newman assigned herself

, a pro se submitted case, on 

, 2020. The case was reassigned to 

on , 2021, after it had been pending for 

302 days. After reassignment to , 

the case was resolved in a couple of weeks. 

• Judge Newman assigned herself

, an argued case, on , 

2022. The case was reassigned to 

on , 2022, after it had been pending 
IN RE COMPLAINT NO 23-90015

269 days. After reassignment, the case was resolved

[within three months]. 

• Judge Newman assigned herself

, a pro se submitted case, on , 

2022. The case was reassigned to on 

, 2023, after it had been pending 126 

days. After reassignment, the case was resolved

[within two months]. 

I have also been made aware of allegations that Judge 

Newman has exhibited inappropriate behavior in managing staff by permitting one of her law clerks to exhibit unprofessional and inappropriate behavior which has been 

reported to Judge Newman. On Monday, March 6, 2023, 

one of her staff reported that Judge Newman also disclosed

sensitive medical information about to her 

staff. 

Based on the above-identified information, I conclude 

that there is probable cause to believe that Judge Newman’s health has left her without the capacity to perform 

the work of an active judge and that her habitual delays 

are prejudicial to the efficient administration of justice. 

See Judicial-Conduct Rule 4(b)(2) and Commentary (indicating that habitual delay in a significant number of cases 

may constitute cognizable misconduct). 

I have attempted to see whether a satisfactory informal 

resolution could be reached to resolve these concerns. I met 

with Judge Newman for approximately 45 minutes where 

I outlined the concerns about her inability to perform the 

work of an active judge and the concerns which had been 

expressed about her mental fitness. She refused to consider senior status saying that she was the only person who 

cared about the patent system and innovation policy. She 

acknowledged only that she was slow in resolving cases. 

Despite half of the active judges of the court having
IN RE COMPLAINT NO 23-90015 6

expressed their concerns to Judge Newman or trying to express their concerns, Judge Newman appears unwilling to 

participate in any informal resolution. I provided Judge 

Newman with a copy of this order on March 17, 2023 and 

informed her that it would not be docketed until March 24, 

2023 so that she would have an opportunity to review it. I 

again requested that we attempt to resolve these concerns 

by informal resolution. She refused to meet with me and 

has not responded to my repeated attempts to discuss informal resolution. 

In summary, the accumulation of these concerns, having been expressed to me by judges and court staff, give me 

probable cause to identify a complaint against Judge Newman regarding disability and misconduct to begin the review process provided in Rule 11 of the Rules for JudicialConduct and Judicial-Disability Proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 /s/ Kimberly A. Moore

Date Kimberly A. Moore

 Chief Judge