{"id":146184,"date":"2026-03-16T15:44:42","date_gmt":"2026-03-16T23:44:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2026\/03\/16\/pauline-newman-petitions-supreme-court-to-hear-her-case\/"},"modified":"2026-03-16T15:44:42","modified_gmt":"2026-03-16T23:44:42","slug":"pauline-newman-petitions-supreme-court-to-hear-her-case","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2026\/03\/16\/pauline-newman-petitions-supreme-court-to-hear-her-case\/","title":{"rendered":"Pauline Newman Petitions Supreme Court To Hear Her Case"},"content":{"rendered":"

Despite their disagreements, judges tend to keep things pretty tame with their colleagues: differing opinions weren\u2019t enough to stop Scalia and Ginsburg from attending<\/a> (or being<\/a>) the opera and all that. We have seen some spats though: VanDyke calling his co-workers possessed<\/a>, hermeneutic back and forth over the word \u201cseek<\/a>,\u201d and a taxing<\/em> Supreme Court dissent<\/a> that shows there was a no-holds-barred wrestling match of ideas behind the tidy 6-3. But the workplace dispute to cap them all has to be the last three years over at the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. While the wording of the back and forth has been pretty tame \u2014 nowhere near a break in decorum like VanDyke\u2019s unnecessary \u201cswinging dicks\u201d comment and his peers compelling him to be better<\/a> \u2014 the nature of Judge Newman\u2019s case has high stakes for judicial independence and constitutional interpretation.<\/p>\n

In short, Article III judges can hold their office as long as they are in good behavior. Most read that to mean that if they commit a crime or act in ways unbecoming of a judge, Congress can oust them by vote. The Federal Circuit seems to read good behavior to mean not being too disagreeable. I say this with my conspiratorial hat on \u2014 the court\u2019s given reason is that they accused Judge Newman of being physically and\/or mentally unfit for the job and are punishing her for not being evaluated by doctors they\u2019ve selected \u2014 but her tendency to naysay has made her stand out. When she tried to appeal her court\u2019s decision, she was met with a shoulder shrug. Even though she raised important questions about due process, the appellate court was bound by prior precedent. But you know who isn\u2019t? The Supreme Court! IP Watchdog<\/a> has coverage:<\/p>\n

The NCLA\u2019s Supreme Court petition, filed Thursday night, poses two questions to the Court:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Does 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 357(c)\u2019s bar on judicial review of previously issued \u201corders\u201d and \u201cdeterminations\u201d apply to ultra vires acts that exceed the scope of authority conferred by the Disability Act and the Constitution?<\/em><\/li>\n
  2. Does 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 357(c)\u2019s bar on judicial review of previously issued \u201corders\u201d and \u201cdeterminations\u201d deprive a court of jurisdiction to consider claims that seek forward-looking relief to enjoin future unlawful actions?<\/em><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    The clarity matters for far more than just Newman\u2019s sake. Since she\u2019s been shadow impeached, the number of federal dissents has noticeably decreased<\/a>. There\u2019s the obvious drop you\u2019d expect from her not penning dissents for the time she\u2019s been on suspension, but the numbers suggest that other judges may be chilled out of breaking from their colleagues\u2019 opinions.<\/p>\n

    Most of the recent calls to protect judges have been in response to political violence for obvious reasons, but job security matters too. Pauline Newman is one of the most respected and well-known circuit judges. If she can be sidelined like this, every other judge who loses a popularity contest risks being punished in the same way. If the Supreme Court decides to take up this case, it could bring some much-needed clarity to judicial self-policing processes and how secure their jobs really are.<\/p>\n

    NCLA Revives Newman Case Against Moore with Supreme Court Petition <\/a>[IP Watchdog]<\/p>\n

    Earlier<\/strong>: Federal Circuit Dissents Plummet After Pauline Newman\u2019s Ersatz Impeachment<\/a><\/p>\n

    Judicial Conduct Committee Passes Ball On Glaring Due Process Issue In Newman Case<\/a><\/p>\n

    U.S. Appeals Court Denies Pauline Newman\u2019s Bid To Challenge Suspension<\/a><\/p>\n

    \n
    \"\"
    <\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

    Chris Williams became a social media manager and assistant editor for Above the Law in June 2021. Prior to joining the staff, he moonlighted as a minor Memelord\u2122 in the Facebook group\u00a0Law School Memes for Edgy T14s . \u00a0He endured Missouri long enough to graduate from Washington University in St. Louis School of Law. He is a former boat builder who is learning to swim and is interested in rhetoric, Spinozists and humor. Getting back in to cycling wouldn\u2019t hurt either. You can reach him by email at\u00a0cwilliams@abovethelaw.com <\/a>and by tweet at\u00a0@WritesForRent<\/a>.<\/strong><\/p>\n

    The post Pauline Newman Petitions Supreme Court To Hear Her Case<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n

    Despite their disagreements, judges tend to keep things pretty tame with their colleagues: differing opinions weren\u2019t enough to stop Scalia and Ginsburg from attending<\/a> (or being<\/a>) the opera and all that. We have seen some spats though: VanDyke calling his co-workers possessed<\/a>, hermeneutic back and forth over the word \u201cseek<\/a>,\u201d and a taxing<\/em> Supreme Court dissent<\/a> that shows there was a no-holds-barred wrestling match of ideas behind the tidy 6-3. But the workplace dispute to cap them all has to be the last three years over at the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. While the wording of the back and forth has been pretty tame \u2014 nowhere near a break in decorum like VanDyke\u2019s unnecessary \u201cswinging dicks\u201d comment and his peers compelling him to be better<\/a> \u2014 the nature of Judge Newman\u2019s case has high stakes for judicial independence and constitutional interpretation.<\/p>\n

    In short, Article III judges can hold their office as long as they are in good behavior. Most read that to mean that if they commit a crime or act in ways unbecoming of a judge, Congress can oust them by vote. The Federal Circuit seems to read good behavior to mean not being too disagreeable. I say this with my conspiratorial hat on \u2014 the court\u2019s given reason is that they accused Judge Newman of being physically and\/or mentally unfit for the job and are punishing her for not being evaluated by doctors they\u2019ve selected \u2014 but her tendency to naysay has made her stand out. When she tried to appeal her court\u2019s decision, she was met with a shoulder shrug. Even though she raised important questions about due process, the appellate court was bound by prior precedent. But you know who isn\u2019t? The Supreme Court! IP Watchdog<\/a> has coverage:<\/p>\n

    The NCLA\u2019s Supreme Court petition, filed Thursday night, poses two questions to the Court:<\/p>\n

      \n
    1. Does 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 357(c)\u2019s bar on judicial review of previously issued \u201corders\u201d and \u201cdeterminations\u201d apply to ultra vires acts that exceed the scope of authority conferred by the Disability Act and the Constitution?<\/em><\/li>\n
    2. Does 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 357(c)\u2019s bar on judicial review of previously issued \u201corders\u201d and \u201cdeterminations\u201d deprive a court of jurisdiction to consider claims that seek forward-looking relief to enjoin future unlawful actions?<\/em><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      The clarity matters for far more than just Newman\u2019s sake. Since she\u2019s been shadow impeached, the number of federal dissents has noticeably decreased<\/a>. There\u2019s the obvious drop you\u2019d expect from her not penning dissents for the time she\u2019s been on suspension, but the numbers suggest that other judges may be chilled out of breaking from their colleagues\u2019 opinions.<\/p>\n

      Most of the recent calls to protect judges have been in response to political violence for obvious reasons, but job security matters too. Pauline Newman is one of the most respected and well-known circuit judges. If she can be sidelined like this, every other judge who loses a popularity contest risks being punished in the same way. If the Supreme Court decides to take up this case, it could bring some much-needed clarity to judicial self-policing processes and how secure their jobs really are.<\/p>\n

      NCLA Revives Newman Case Against Moore with Supreme Court Petition <\/a>[IP Watchdog]<\/p>\n

      Earlier<\/strong>: Federal Circuit Dissents Plummet After Pauline Newman\u2019s Ersatz Impeachment<\/a><\/p>\n

      Judicial Conduct Committee Passes Ball On Glaring Due Process Issue In Newman Case<\/a><\/p>\n

      U.S. Appeals Court Denies Pauline Newman\u2019s Bid To Challenge Suspension<\/a><\/p>\n

      \n
      \"\"
      <\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

      Chris Williams became a social media manager and assistant editor for Above the Law in June 2021. Prior to joining the staff, he moonlighted as a minor Memelord\u2122 in the Facebook group\u00a0Law School Memes for Edgy T14s . \u00a0He endured Missouri long enough to graduate from Washington University in St. Louis School of Law. He is a former boat builder who is learning to swim and is interested in rhetoric, Spinozists and humor. Getting back in to cycling wouldn\u2019t hurt either. You can reach him by email at\u00a0cwilliams@abovethelaw.com <\/a>and by tweet at\u00a0@WritesForRent<\/a>.<\/strong><\/p>\n

      The post Pauline Newman Petitions Supreme Court To Hear Her Case<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

      Despite their disagreements, judges tend to keep things pretty tame with their colleagues: differing opinions weren\u2019t enough to stop Scalia and Ginsburg from attending (or being) the opera and all that. We have seen some spats though: VanDyke calling his co-workers possessed, hermeneutic back and forth over the word \u201cseek,\u201d and a taxing Supreme Court […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":146185,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-146184","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-above_the_law"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/xira.com\/p\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/Chris-Williams-2025-HprNbh.jpg?fit=512%2C288&ssl=1","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/146184","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=146184"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/146184\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/146185"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=146184"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=146184"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=146184"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}