United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit

UNDER SEAL (NON-PUBLIC ORDER)

__________________________

IN RE COMPLAINT NO. 23-90015

__________________________

Before MOORE, Chief Judge, PROST and TARANTO, Circuit 

Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

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 raising, inter 

alia, a concern that she has a mental or physical disability 

that renders her unable to discharge the duties of her office. Despite repeated requests and orders, Judge Newman 

has thus far not cooperated with the Committee’s investigation.

In particular, in orders dated April 7, 2023 and April 

17, 2023, the Committee ordered Judge Newman to undergo medical evaluation and testing to determine whether 

she suffers from a disability and ordered her to provide 

medical records. Judge Newman did not comply with those 

orders. In a recent letter, however, Judge Newman’s counsel has indicated that Judge Newman may now be willing 

to cooperate. See April 21, 2023 Letter from Mark 

Chenowith to The Hon. Kimberly A. Moore, Chief Judge, 
IN RE COMPLAINT NO 23-90015

2

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, at 

2 (hereinafter “Letter Motion”). Accordingly, in the hope 

that Judge Newman will now cooperate with its investigation, the Committee is reissuing its orders regarding medical evaluation and testing and medical records and 

establishing new deadlines for compliance.

In addition, counsel for Judge Newman has asked that 

the Chief Judge or the Committee request that the Chief 

Justice of the United States transfer this matter to another 

circuit. As explained below, that request is denied at this 

time without prejudice to refiling after Judge Newman has 

complied with the Committee’s orders concerning medical 

evaluation and testing and medical records. 

I. Required Medical Testing and Medical Records

A. Background

On April 7, 2023, the Committee issued an Order requesting that Judge Newman inform the Committee by 

April 11, 2023 whether she would make herself available 

for ordered medical evaluation and testing (to be conducted 

at a later date). The April 7 Order informed Judge Newman that her failure to respond by that deadline would be 

deemed failure to comply and that her failure to comply 

without good cause shown could result in an expansion of 

the scope of the investigation to include whether her noncooperation amounted to misconduct. Judge Newman 

never responded. At the Committee’s request, the Chief 

Judge, on April 13, 2023, expanded the investigation to include the failure to respond. 

On April 17, 2023, the Committee issued an Order requiring that Judge Newman provide certain medical information to the Committee “by May 5, 2023 (subject to an 

extension for good cause)” and also that she sit for an interview with the Committee “thereafter at a mutually 

agreeable time and date.” The April 17 Order asked that 
IN RE COMPLAINT NO 23-90015

3

Judge Newman, by 9:00 am April 21, 2023, “(1) inform the 

Committee in writing (email response is acceptable) as to 

whether (a) she will provide the Committee with the identified medical information; and (b) she will consent to the 

proposed interview or (2) provide good cause why an extension of time is needed to respond to this Order.” The Order 

stated that “[f]ailure to respond by 9:00 am April 21, 2023 

will be deemed failure to comply and be treated by the 

Committee as a refusal to cooperate.” Again, Judge Newman failed to respond. 

Notwithstanding Judge Newman’s prior refusals to cooperate, her counsel indicated on April 21, 2023 that Judge 

Newman is now prepared to cooperate. Thus, the Committee issues this new Order.

B. Medical Testing

Since the Committee originally issued an order on 

April 7, 2023 requiring that Judge Newman undergo medical evaluation and testing, the Committee’s investigation 

has developed further information that reinforces the Committee’s conclusion that such evaluation and testing are 

necessary. Based on its investigation to date, the Committee has determined that there is a reasonable basis to conclude that Judge Newman might suffer a disability that 

interferes with her ability to perform the responsibilities of 

her office. This investigation has included more than a 

dozen interviews with court staff and discussions with Dr. 

, MD, whom the Committee retained to assist in this matter. These form the basis for the Committee’s conclusion that there is a reasonable basis for the 

required testing and evaluations recommended by Dr. 

in order to determine whether Judge Newman has a 

disability that renders her unable to perform the functions 

and duties of her office. 

Court staff, including some of Judge Newman’s own 

chambers staff, have reported that over the course of the 
IN RE COMPLAINT NO 23-90015

4

last year the Judge has experienced significant mental deterioration including memory loss, lack of focus, confusion, 

and the inability to understand and execute simple tasks

she was once capable of completing. Court staff members 

have reported to the Committee that Judge Newman frequently claims that her email and computer are being 

hacked and at times that her phones are being bugged and 

that her complaints to Information Technology have increased from once or twice a week to almost daily or every 

other day. They describe her demeanor in these encounters 

as agitated and paranoid and the conversations themselves 

as bizarre and nonsensical. In each instance, Information 

Technology staff found no evidence to support Judge Newman’s concerns. Staff reported that in the past Judge Newman claimed that it was bloggers and the media who were 

out to get her and bring her down who were hacking and 

bugging her devices. More recently, staff report that she is 

claiming that it is the court itself hacking and bugging her 

devices. 

Staff reported that Judge Newman now routinely forgets how to do simple tasks that she never previously had 

difficulty doing, such as logging into our court system or 

network, remembering where she put court material, and

bringing her briefs and case materials to court on court 

days. Staff reported that Judge Newman has trouble recalling events and information just days after they occur 

and at times seems lost and confused. Staff reported that 

they have to assist her over and over with the same tasks

which she seems unable to remember from one day to the 

next—tasks which she had previously performed independently for years without any difficulty. One staff member stated, “Though it is difficult to say this, I believe Judge 

Newman is simply losing it mentally.”

One staff member relayed an instance recently in 

which Judge Newman indicated that she was not required 

to comply with a court rule which required circulating 
IN RE COMPLAINT NO 23-90015

5

votes on opinions within 5 days. This rule was unanimously adopted by the court (including a vote by Judge 

Newman) in March 2018. The staffer claimed that Judge 

Newman recently said that she did not have to comply with 

this rule because Chief Judge Markey told her she could 

take 30 days to vote. Chief Judge Markey has been dead 

for almost 17 years and has not been a member of the court 

for 32 years. 

Judge Newman’s sharing of the contents of a confidential Employment Dispute Resolution (EDR) matter to 95 

court staffers also raises concerns about her ability to remember or understand important confidentiality requirements and to manage the administration of her chambers. 

Two of Judge Newman’s chambers staff ended their 

employment in her chambers on April 19, 2023. Recent 

emails sent by Judge Newman related to these events suggest potential confusion or memory loss. For example, on 

April 19, 2023, an email was sent to Judge Newman and 

her chambers staff indicating that one of her [chambers 

staff] resigned effective that day and did not wish to be contacted by any member of the chambers including the Judge. 

Judge Newman acknowledged receiving the email and indicated it was “appropriate” and that his separation from 

her chambers should be expeditiously processed. Yet eight 

days later, on April 27, 2023, Judge Newman sent an email 

to all judges indicating that she had not “released” the 

[staff member] and that his continued service at the court 

in another chambers was “in violation of my right to [staff] 

services.” 

There was a nearly identical exchange about her former [staff member]. As the April 20 Order in this matter

detailed, Judge Newman’s [staff member] alleges that 

Judge Newman threatened to terminate him on the morning of April 19, 2023 for seeking relief under the court’s 

EDR program. Multiple staff members reported that on 
IN RE COMPLAINT NO 23-90015

6

April 18, 2023 Judge Newman stated her intention to have 

him forcibly removed from the building and arrested. See 

April 20 Order. In light of these events, an email was sent 

to Judge Newman and her chambers staff on April 19, 2023 

informing them that the [staff member] was no longer a 

member of the Newman chambers and that he wished for 

there to be no further communication to him by any member of the Newman chambers including the judge herself. 

Yet again, on April 27, 2023, Judge Newman sent an email 

to all judges stating: “I never released my [staff member][] 

from my chambers staff. His movement to your staff, without consultation with me, violates his confidentiality and 

other obligations to me.” 

Judge Newman has a[n employee] in her chambers 

who was unwilling to provide any testimony about 

Judge Newman’s ability to perform the duties of her job. 

In fact, the [employee] exercised her Fifth Amendment 

right to remain silent to avoid incriminating herself. For 

example, “Q. We understand that you are her [employee]. 

Can you tell us about that role and what your 

responsibilities are? A. I am going to invoke my right 

under the Fifth Amendment to avoid self-incrimination.” 

She likewise asserted the Fifth Amendment in response to 

questions about whether she has prepared any bench 

memos or draft opinions in the last year and whether she 

is currently working on any pending cases at the court. 

She further invoked the Fifth Amendment when asked 

about her perceptions of Judge Newman’s ability to 

carry out her job. 

 
IN RE COMPLAINT NO 23-90015

7

The Committee’s consultant, Dr. , has 

recommended that Judge Newman undergo a neurological 

evaluation and a complete neuropsychological battery of 

tests to determine whether she suffers from a disability, 

and if so, its nature and extent.

These reports of memory loss, confusion, and an increasing inability at times to perform simple, routine tasks 

necessary to carry out her duties as a judge, combined with 

Dr. recommendation and Judge Newman’s backlog and delays in the processing of cases and circulation of 

opinions compared to her colleagues, see March 24 Order, 

have caused the Committee to conclude that the recommended medical testing and exams are necessary to determine if Judge Newman has a disability. The Committee 

finds there is a reasonable basis to conclude that such evaluation and testing is necessary to facilitate the Committee’s consideration of whether Judge Newman suffers a 

disability that prevents her from performing her duties as 

a judge. See Rule 13(a) of the Rules for Judicial Conduct 

and Judicial-Disability Proceedings (Rules). To be clear, 

the Committee has made no fact findings at this time regarding the allegations reported herein, but rather finds

that these allegations individually and collectively give the 

Committee a reasonable basis to order the identified medical exams and testing. See Rule 13(a).

Judge Newman’s counsel suggested by letter dated 

April 21, 2023, that they may wish to “engage in negotiation as to the scope of the requests as provided by the Commentary to Rule 13.” The statute, rules, and commentary 

delegate to the Committee the authority to order the testing it deems necessary. Section 353(c) authorizes the Committee to “conduct an investigation as extensive as it 

considers necessary.” 28 U.S.C. § 353(c). The Rules reinforce that “the special committee should take steps to determine the full scope of the potential [] disability.” Rule 

13(a). Commentary to Rule 13 expressly recognizes the 
IN RE COMPLAINT NO 23-90015

8

Committee’s authority under the statute and rules to order 

the medical testing it deems necessary in order to ascertain

the nature and scope of the potential disability. Rule 13 

cmt. Finally, the Rules authorize the Committee to “determine the appropriate extent and methods of its investigation in light of the allegations.” Rule 13(a). Based on 

reports from court staff identified herein and consistent 

with the recommendation of Dr. , the Committee 

has concluded that the above identified testing and evaluations are necessary. 

Dr. has identified a qualified neurologist, Dr. 

, who is willing to perform the necessary 

neurological testing on an expedited basis, and a qualified 

neuropsychologist, Dr. , who is willing to 

conduct the neuropsychological testing on an expedited basis. Dr. and Dr. shall be provided with 

any material from the Committee and from Judge Newman 

that they deem appropriate and necessary to perform the 

tests and evaluations deemed necessary to ascertain the 

nature and scope of any potential disability. 

A judge’s sound mental health is essential to her fulfillment of all judicial duties. Judges must fairly, justly, and 

expeditiously resolve the cases before them. Litigants are 

entitled to sound-minded judges capable of fully executing 

the responsibilities of their job. Judges also must be capable of managing the administration of their chambers to 

effectively carry out their duties. Public confidence in the 

judiciary depends critically on the fitness of judges who adjudicate their cases. Given the importance of these concepts and the seriousness of the allegations made by court 

staff, the Committee believes it imperative that the required evaluation and testing be performed on an expedited basis. 
IN RE COMPLAINT NO 23-90015

9

C. Medical Records

In addition, the Committee, by the present Order, requires that Judge Newman provide hospital records, medical, psychiatric or psychological, and other healthprofessional records that relate to the incidents of 2021 and 

2022 described in the second paragraph of the Order dated 

March 24, 2023. These include records of treatment as well 

as consultation about those incidents, whether from a time 

contemporaneous with the incidents or later. 

The Committee also requires production of hospital 

records and medical, psychiatric or psychological, or other 

health-professional records by any treatment provider of 

any treatment or consultation in the last two years regarding mental acuity, attention, focus, confusion, memory loss, 

fatigue, or stamina. These are the same records that the 

Committee requested on April 17, 2023. The Committee 

proposes Judge Newman provide such medical records by 

May 23, 2023.

II. Request to Transfer

The Letter Motion from counsel for Judge Newman 

also asks, pursuant to Rule 26, that the Chief Judge or the 

Committee request that the Chief Justice of the United 

States transfer the above-captioned matter to the judicial 

council of another circuit. Letter Motion at 3. For the reasons explained below, the Letter Motion is denied at this 

time without prejudice to renewing the request for a transfer after Judge Newman has complied with orders of the 

Committee requiring that she provide medical records and 

undergo neurological and neuro-psychological testing conducted by physicians selected by the Committee.1

1 Pursuant to Rule 26 only the chief judge or the judicial council may ask the Chief Justice for a transfer. By 

this order, both the chief judge and the Committee deny the 
IN RE COMPLAINT NO 23-90015

10

The Rules make clear that transfer of a matter involving an investigation into judicial misconduct or disability 

is warranted only in “exceptional circumstances.” Rule 26. 

The commentary to Rule 26 identifies several factors that 

may counsel in favor of transfer, such as “where there are 

multiple disqualifications among the original judicial council,” where “the issues are highly visible and a local disposition may weaken public confidence in the process,” or 

where there are “internal tensions” in the local judicial 

council. Commentary on Rule 26. None of those circumstances applies here. The concern in a highly visible case 

involving serious charges of misconduct is that a local judicial council may be perceived as proceeding too leniently. 

Because this case is rooted in concerns about a judge’s disability it does not raise similar concerns. In addition, the 

Breyer Committee Report—which informed the drafting of 

the Rules—suggests that this case involves many of the 

factors that counsel against transfer. See Implementation 

of the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980, Report 

to the Chief Justice of the Judicial Conduct and Disability 

Act Study Committee, 239 F.R.D. 116, 215 (Sept. 2006) 

(“Breyer Committee Report”). In this case, the “relative ignorance” of judges in another circuit of “local circumstances 

and personalities might make them less able to gauge what 

corrective action would be effective and appropriate,” 

judges in another circuit would likely be “in a poor position 

to persuade a judge whom they do not know well to take 

the action they believe is necessary,” and a transfer would 

request for transfer at this time without prejudice to refiling after Judge Newman produces the requested medical 

records and undergoes the ordered medical exams and testing. The judicial council has, in a companion order issued 

this same day, likewise denied without prejudice to refiling 

any such request to transfer and requires the same medical 

testing and evaluations and disclosure of medical records. 
IN RE COMPLAINT NO 23-90015

11

undoubtedly “increase time and expense” involved in resolving this matter, with little apparent benefit. Id. As 

discussed throughout, the Committee has already conducted more than a dozen interviews in this matter and 

worked extensively with its expert consultant. In short, 

this is a case in which the general preference in the Rules 

for local resolution of judicial misconduct or disability proceedings squarely applies.

The suggestion in the Letter Motion that “transferring 

a complaint about a circuit judge appears to be standard 

practice within the regional circuits,” Letter Mot. at 3, is 

simply incorrect. The Letter Motion cites only three examples of such transfers over the last decade. And the actual 

data for complaints involving judicial misconduct or disability establish that such inter-circuit transfers remain—

as the Rules intended—exceptional. In the twelve-month

period ending September 30, 2022, there were 375 complaints involving circuit judges, but only 2 complaints involving judges at any level were transferred from one 

circuit to another. See Table S22, Judicial Complaints—

Complaints Commenced, Terminated, and Pending with 

Allegations and Actions Taken Under Authority of 28 

U.S.C. 351-364 During the 12-Month Period Ending Sept. 

30, 2022, available at https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/data tables/jb s22 0930.2022.pdf. In the prior 

twelve month period ending September 30, 2021, there 

were 319 complaints relating to circuit judges and zero 

transfers from one circuit to another. See Table S22, Judicial Complaints—Complaints Commenced, Terminated, 

and Pending with Allegations and Actions Taken Under 

Authority of 28 U.S.C. 351-364 During the 12-Month Period 

Ending Sept. 30, 2021, available at 

https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/data tables/jb s22 0930.2021.pdf

Each of the three examples of a transfer cited in the 

Letter Motion also involved circumstances wholly unlike 
IN RE COMPLAINT NO 23-90015

12

the situation presented in this case. Each case was focused 

on highly publicized allegations of misconduct. This proceeding, by contrast, is rooted in the fundamentally different question whether, after decades of extraordinary and 

distinguished service, Judge Newman now suffers at the 

age of 95 from a disability that has rendered her unable to 

perform her duties. This case simply does not raise the 

same concerns that the colleagues of a subject judge may 

take too lenient an approach in a case involving highly publicized charges of misconduct and that public confidence 

will be bolstered by transferring the matter to another circuit. Instead, we believe this is precisely the sort of proceeding that the Breyer Committee Report contemplated 

benefiting from local handling in the circuit where it arises. 

The most relevant precedent for this matter appears to be 

the proceeding conducted by the Sixth Circuit concerning 

District Judge John R. Adams and an investigation into 

whether he suffered from a mental or emotional disability 

in which the Sixth Circuit twice denied motions from Judge 

Adams requesting a transfer of the proceeding to another 

circuit. See Order and Memorandum at 4, In re Complaint 

of Judicial Misconduct, No. 06-13-90009 (Judicial Council 

of the Sixth Circuit Feb. 22, 2016) (recounting that Chief 

Judge Cole of the Sixth Circuit twice rejected requests to 

transfer because the case did not raise any “exceptional circumstances” warranting such action).

To the extent the Letter Motion anticipates that the 

Committee may conduct an evidentiary hearing at a later 

point in this proceeding and speculates that witnesses at 

any such hearing “likely would include” members of the 

Circuit, Letter Motion at 3—and argues that such an eventuality could raise questions about those judges serving as 

adjudicators in this matter—those concerns are premature 

at this stage of the proceedings. The Committee has determined to proceed in a cautious, deliberate, and step-wise 

fashion in this matter. Based on (i) data related to Judge 
IN RE COMPLAINT NO 23-90015

13

Newman’s caseload and the time it takes her to issue opinions, (ii) descriptions detailed extensively above from multiple staff members, including Judge Newman’s own 

chambers staff, who report that over the last year Judge 

Newman has experienced significant mental deterioration 

including memory loss, lack of focus, confusion and the inability to understand and execute simple tasks she was 

once capable of completing, and (iii) the recommendation of 

an independent expert, the Committee has determined 

that the most important next step in this investigation is 

for Judge Newman to provide medical records and to undergo psychiatric and neurological evaluations conducted 

by neutral physicians selected by the Committee. Information from these records and evaluations will serve an 

important gating function in determining the appropriate 

next steps in the Committee’s investigation.

Accordingly, the Letter Motion asking the Chief Judge 

or the Committee to make a request to the Chief Justice to 

transfer this matter to the Judicial Council of another circuit is denied without prejudice to renewing the motion after Judge Newman has complied with this order requiring 

that she provide medical records and undergo neurological 

and neuro-psychological evaluations. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

(1) Judge Newman is directed to undergo the aboveidentified evaluation and testing;

(2) Given the willingness of the physicians to handle 

this matter on an expedited basis, the fact that these tests 

were previously ordered on April 7, 2023 and the need to 

retain the physicians and allocate funds, a prompt response is necessary to secure the appointments. Judge 

Newman is therefore directed to inform the Committee by 

9:00 am on May 10, 2023 (email response is acceptable) as 
IN RE COMPLAINT NO 23-90015

14

to whether she will comply with this Order and make herself available for the above needed evaluations and tests; 

(3) Judge Newman is also directed to inform the Committee in writing (email response is acceptable) by 9:00 am 

on May 10, 2023 as to whether she will provide the Committee with the identified medical information (the same 

information previously requested on April 17, 2023) by 

May 24, 2023. Judge Newman may seek an extension for 

any medical records that she is unable to obtain in this 

time frame;

(4) Refusal to comply with this Order without good 

cause shown may result in the Committee seeking to expand the scope of the investigation to include an inquiry 

into whether Judge Newman’s further non-cooperation 

constitutes misconduct under Rule 4(a)(5). Failure to respond to this Order by the deadlines specified in ordering 

clauses (2) and (3) above will be deemed failure to comply;

and 

(5) The request for the Chief Judge or the Committee 

to request transfer to the judicial council of another circuit 

is denied without prejudice to refile after Judge Newman 

has complied with the Committee’s order concerning medical records and has undergone the neurological and neuropsychological evaluations ordered by the Committee. The 

judicial council has unanimously entered an order this 

same day similarly denying the transfer request without 

prejudice to refiling after compliance with this Committee’s

requests for medical records and the Committee-ordered 

neurological and neuro-psychological evaluations and testing. 

SO ORDERED: May 3, 2023.