The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
The Stealth Impeachment of Judge Newman in the Federal Circuit
Chief Judge Kimberly Moore cannot be the judge, jury, and executioner of her colleague.
Of late, the media has fixated on judicial ethics--for certain judges, at least. Regrettably, many of these stories fail to put the accusations in context. In some situations, judges took actions that were actually consistent with the rules, or were not-clearly inconsistent with the rules. Still, self-professed experts find fault with unwritten rules. In other cases, judges have made good-faith mistakes based on misreading byzantine codes, and promptly agreed to correct those errors. Some of the allegations border on frivolous, but disfavored judges still get placed under the microscope. Throughout all of this breathless reporting, there has not been a single allegation of an actual conflict of interest between a judge and a party that would result in recusal. To quote Justice Breyer, there has been nothing "underhanded." At most, the claims focus on the nebulous appearance of impropriety standard, which can mean just about anything.
Yet, at present, we may be witnessing serious judicial misconduct that involves an actual conflict of interest. And the Washington Post does not need to fly a swat team of reporters to Amarillo to investigate. I speak, of course, about the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Now, I do not have any dog in this fight. I know little about patent law, other than the fact that the Supreme Court routinely reverses the Federal Circuit. Chief Judge Moore was a professor at George Mason, but I never took any classes with her. And, as best as I can recall, I've never even seen Judge Newman. Indeed, she only popped on my radar when I was calculating which judges were eligible to take senior status. Newman was born in 1927, was appointed to the Federal Circuit in 1984, and became eligible for senior status in 1996. But the almost-96-year-old has never taken senior status--and that decision has created problems for her colleagues.
According to Judge Moore, Judge Newman is taking a really long time to resolve cases--in some situations, more than a year. (To be frank, Judge Newman is performing at a faster clip than some Biden-appointed judges who are five decades younger.) On the surface, Judge Moore is trying to pressure Judge Newman to take senior status. As a general matter, senior status judges can still hear cases--but those assignments are at the discretion of the Chief Judge. And if Newman were to take senior status, then Moore and her successors could simply prevent Newman from hearing other cases. The remedy being sought is stark: Judge Moore, and her colleagues on the Federal Circuit, are trying to prevent any future cases from being assigned to Judge Newman. Indeed, Judge Moore has already stopped assigning new cases to Newman, who remains an active status judge. If Judge Moore succeeds, Judge Newman would remain an Article III judge in name only. To put it bluntly, Chief Judge Kimberly Moore is engaging in a stealth impeachment of Judge Pauline Newman.
Newman is now represented by the New Civil Liberties Alliance. And NCLA sent a letter to Moore. I realize the facts here are complex, and contested. I'll avoid opining on the merits. Rather, I want to focus on the apparent conflict of interest.
Every federal circuit has a "Judicial Council." That council includes some circuit judges, as well as some district court judges, from that circuit. (The Federal Circuit has no district court judges, so only circuit judges sit on that council.) If a misconduct complaint is filed against a district court judge in a particular circuit, it is understood that circuit court judges from that circuit can impartially resolve the conflict. After all, circuit court judges have to review the decisions of district court judges all the time. Most circuit judges never actually even see district court judges--except, as John Roberts once observed, in the D.C. Circuit, where all judges have to share a cafeteria.
However, when a misconduct complaint is filed against a circuit court judge, there will often be a potential conflict, or at least awkwardness. Specifically, circuit judges may not be comfortable to resolve a case against their colleague. They sit together regularly, for decades at a time. Partiality can always be questioned. Therefore, a mechanism exists in which the Chief Judge of the circuit can ask the Chief Justice of the United States to reassign the matter to another circuit. That way, the issue can be impartially adjudicated. This process is not uncommon. Over the past decade, misconduct complaints against circuit judges from the Fifth, Sixth, and Eleventh Circuits were transferred to other circuits.
Yet, Chief Judge Moore has not, to date at least, moved to transfer Newman's case to another circuit. This decision is especially problematic due to the nature of the allegations. Here, we are not dealing with a misconduct complaint from a litigant, or private citizen, who objects to something the judge did on bench, or in public. Rather, the allegations here concern actions that Judge Newman has taken during the opinion writing process. Other than the final date on which an opinion is actually published, the public has no knowledge about how the sausage is made. We do not know when drafts were circulated. We do not know how long judges took to make and revise edits. And we do not know whether complicated legal issues made the process take longer. The only people who have this evidence would be the fellow judges of the circuit, including Judge Moore, and court staff. Yet, Judge Moore purports to decide whether there was misconduct. She is the fact-witness, the fact-finder, and the adjudicator. There is an apparent conflict of interest.
Finally, there is another issue lurking under the surface. If Chief Judge Moore succeeds in pushing her colleague to take senior status, a new vacancy would open up for the Biden Administration. The patent bar is, from what I've heard, very clubby. And there is no blue slip delay. I'm sure there is a list of attorneys waiting to fill that seat. Judge Moore, by pushing out her colleague, is opening a seat for someone else. Judges should have no role in picking their successors. Nor should judges have a role in creating vacancies on their court, in which more-congenial nominees can assume the seat. And I don't put much stock in the fact that Moore is a Republican-appointee, and we currently have a Democratic president. Judge Newman has suggested that this misconduct process is in retaliation for her disfavored views on patent law.
Chief Judge Kimberly Moore cannot be the judge, jury, and executioner of Judge Newman.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Democrats do not have any ethical constraints on their behavior.
Chief judge Moore is a W Bush nominee.
Yes, Republican presidents will, from time to time, nominate liberals to the bench. You are confusing their behavior with that of Democrat presidents. NB: I am not saying Moore is a liberal, and I am not saying she is not. Just that her being nominated by a Republican president is not probative of anything.
Your not saying he’s no true Scotsman? Well that’s a relief. For a moment it seemed like you were being a partisan ass.
Is there any conservative federal judge that has been nominated by a Democrat? You and I both know the lengthy list of liberals nominated by Republican presidents.
The Bushies are not Republicans.
The Bushes are lifelong Republicans.
The Bushes nominated Thomas and Alito.
The younger Bush also nominated John Roberts, who has turned out about as conservative as expected -- the three Trump appointees now overshadow that appointment, but it was the obvious one at the time.
The elder Bush did nominate Souter. Maybe he should have nominated J. Harvie Wilkinson. Remember that in 1990 the Democrats were in control of the Senate, and any nominee more conservative than Kennedy or Wilkinson would have had trouble getting through.
Whatever the right answer here is, a 96-year old continuing to sit as a judge is almost certainly not it.
Lord Denning was one of the greatest judges in the history of the law, but by the time he finally retired at age 83 he was well past his best by date.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Denning,_Baron_Denning#Illness_and_controversy
The procedures to answer this are already there.
The instant judicial complaint should be referred to another circuit for resolution.
Any litigant that thinks the judge is not doing her duty wrt a case can file for mandamus.
If the judge is not doing her duty wrt to her office, she should be impeached.
It shouldn't take impeachment in Congress to get rid of a judge who is to old and senile to retire. Just give them a mandatory retirement age already.
Is she senile?
I don't know, my point was about old judges generally.
No, your comment specifically says "to[sic] old and senile".
Yes, and "a judge", as in: any judge.
It was stated she turns out opinions faster than colleagues half her age -- and she doesn't appear to be reversed any more often than anyone else in that circuit, and litigants aren't complaining.
There are people who are senile in their 50s -- its a matter of cognition.
If you can be old and senile and still be President, surely you cam be a judge.
If you think impeachment is too much trouble, surely a constitutional amendment is even more so.
A constitutional amendment is something you only have to do once.
"Just give them a mandatory retirement age already."
That would require a constitutional amendment.
"
Staying in office while too old is not good behavior, no amendment necessary.
That being?
Really?
How about an 80 year old POTUS with Parkinson's Disease?
How about a 46-year-old President who was high as a kite and dying?
It's highly unlikely that JFK would have lived to complete a 2nd term.
He's not a lawyer, but he plays doctor on the Internet!
Huh looks like the federal circuit also has two active judges over 85.
This is a joke, right? You seem to be trying to convince us that what is happening on the Federal Circuit is worse than a Supreme Court justice (1) accepting hundreds of thousands of dollars in the form of vacations and travel on yachts and private jets and (2) violating the law that requires the disclosure of real estate transaction, even relatively small ones. I sure hope, Professor, that you're not the one at your law school who is in charge of teaching students about the appearance of impropriety.
The first paragraph defends "certain judges" with the feeble excuses already trotted out for Clarence Thomas and his decades of questionable ethics.
Since Clarence Thomas is excused from knowing what the law requires, it seems harsh to attack Chief Judge Moore for quite recent actions when we don't really know what the complaint was, and with no knowledge of whether she will quickly correct any error. But the purpose seems clearly to distract from Thomas.
Those travels were with a friend who has no business before the court. Surely even Justice Thomas is allowed to have friends. Heck, Biden is allowed to have Chinese and Ukrainian friends who pay his son handsomely, unlike Justice Thomas's friend.
The deductions were for a company which changed name but is still in business.
https://www.hoover.org/about/who-we-are/overseers
https://www.hoover.org/news/hoover-senior-fellows-file-supreme-court-amicus-brief-case-challenging-president-bidens
Hmmmmmmmmmm
Those travels were with a friend who has no business before the court.
As LawTalkingGuy points out, that isn't what is being alleged. If Crow had had business before the Court and Thomas didn't recuse, that would have had people drawing up impeachment articles before midnight on the day it was discovered, with Republican House leaders desperately and futilely trying to figure out a way to avoid having to vote on them. Getting "hospitality" to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars of vacations and travel from someone with deep ties and millions donated to partisan political causes, including think tanks that filed amicus briefs in Supreme Court Cases, isn't instant evidence of corruption. But it does obviously raise questions and the appearance of impropriety that a judge should work hard to avoid. That Thomas clearly didn't work hard to avoid that appearance of being influenced by Crow or even if he simply liked hanging out with him and getting nice vacays from someone wealthy that shared his political leanings is a serious ethical lapse. (And he then didn't include them in disclosures because some unnamed colleague advised him years ago that he didn't have to. Never mind that he had disclosed something similar many years ago, and that got published by a reporter. After that, he stopped disclosing them.)
GOP-appointed justices have been whining about being seen as partisan hacks even more than ever before, and here we have the senior GOP-appointed justice hanging out with a conservative billionaire activist and getting gifts and benefits worth more than his annual salary from it. It is sad that Republicans are so stridently defending him on this.
MoreCurious : "This is a joke, right?"
As for Blackman, apparently he's still uncomfortable defending Thomas directly. This is his second indirect stab at a CT defense following an unusually long break (for him) from SCOUS gossip. Which is the one bright spot in this whole affair. Clarence should grift more often if it intimidates Blackman into restraint.
As for Thomas, people seem to be ignoring the most grotesque aspect of his shameless money-grubbing actions. I've heard some try to compare this to Soros, though they can't exactly figure out how. But imagine if some public figure from the Left sold his mother's house to Soros with the old lady still inside. Imagine that desperation to keep the money spigot cranked open, or that determination to keep a sugardaddy happy, or that total lack of self respect. Can anyone come up with anything remotely similar?
I think what bothers me the most is that he seems to feel entitled to luxury vacations. I forget what his wife earns, but I think he makes over a quarter-million dollars a year as a justice. That kind of money will pay for some decent vacations every year. Most of us who earn less than he does have managed some pretty nice trips -- that we pay for ourselves. My advice to Clarence and Ginni: if you can't support your lifestyle on what you earn, maybe you need to reconsider your lifestyle.
Here’s another example of his money-hungry arrogance: Thomas dutifully reported his gifts until 2004. That year he owned-up to a long list of largesse from Crow, including a Bible once belonging to Frederick Douglass (value, $19,000) and a bust of Abraham Lincoln (value, $15,000). Thomas also reported air flights and resort stays from Crow.
It attached attention and a story by the Los Angles Times. Thomas refused comment on the article, but it still had an impact: The Justice still took tens of thousand of dollars worth of gifts, year after year, after year. He just no longer report anything.
So forget all the excuses. Thomas reported until his grifting was noticed. When it was, he “discovered” reporting wasn't required.
Let's not forget the hypocrisy.
Thomas not only accepted lavish gifts and opulent travel; he also publicly depicted himself as a man of the people who preferred recreational vehicles and Walmart parking lots to fancy hotels and exotic destinations. He refrained from mentioning the superyachts, opulent Indonesian hideaways, and the like -- because he's a disingenuous phony.
The media is more interested in issues surrounding abortion than it is interested in issues surrounding patent law. Surely this is a Communist plot.
I am relieved to know that, in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, nobody is leaking like at the Supreme Court (Dobbs leak, Alito dinner parties, whatever Clarence Thomas chats about with Harlan Crow and his friends). Maybe they could advise on improving SCOTUS practices in its sausage making.
"...Judges should have no role in picking members their successors. ..."
Is this a sentence? I'm ashamed to admit that I have no idea what it means? (Language-fail on my part???)
Delete "members". You're welcome.
Ah, it was just a typo. (Or, whatever you call it when you giraffe insert a seemingly-random word into a sentence.) Given the context; I think your guess is correct.
I'm hoping that more people will come to realize that lifetime appointments to the federal bench have long outlived their usefulness. (Pun intended) We need to make it far more difficult to get partisans and ideologues on the bench in the first place, as well. But we also shouldn't watch the health of Supreme Court justices like they were popes, nor should justices have any way of timing their retirements to ensure that the right kind of President gets to appoint their replacement.
Judges should have no role in picking members their successors.
Nice, Josh. Very precise language.
Anyway, I wonder what Anthony Kennedy thinks about this principle.
Why is the New Civil Liberties Alliance -- a right-wing separatist organization -- pressing this?
Just to try to avoid a circuit court vacancy while a Democrat is president?
Or do disaffected culture war casualties reflexively side with every contrarian and misfit?
Or maybe they feel that the judge is being treated unfairly.
There was a time when organizations acted on that basis.
An interesting tale but the cliffhanger is left unstated. What, if any, remedies does Newman have, or potentially have, within the system as it is?
According to news reports, Moore is claiming Newman has a disability, not that she has engaged in misconduct. Whether or not the Federal Circuit should have an outside panel reviewing the claim, the term “stealth impeachment” seems inappropriate.
"Throughout all of this breathless reporting, there has not been a single allegation of an actual conflict of interest between a judge and a party that would result in recusal."
You're a lying sack of shit, Blackman.
https://www.npr.org/2022/03/30/1089595933/legal-ethics-experts-agree-justice-thomas-must-recuse-in-insurrection-cases
Should Prof. Blackman's students believe anything he says?
I know Professor Blackman did not delve into the facts (too much), but this sure sounds like a case where a careful examination of the facts are warranted. The Chief judge wants to shove a more experienced judge off the bench.
Is this age-ism? 🙂
Whatever this is, it is not a, "stealth impeachment," nor an impeachment of any kind.
Impeach Chief Judge Kimberly Moore.
You figure the partisans pressing the 95-year-old's cause want to see two openings that would precipitate nominations by Pres. Biden?
We've had skanky, psychopath judges here in my bailiwick since time immemorial. They're even skankier now, and I don't know where to find an honest one. I thought since the 80's when I quietly took my exit, things would get better. I wrote about it, and the horde of men and women in black skirts just got angry. I would never let a judge in my civil case find the facts, but they'll crawl up trees backwards and commit forgery to keep you from getting a jury trial. Why not just wait until the trial is over and if the plaintiff has won, set the verdict aside? That's what the crooks did in my heyday.
I think I'm going to start a "Louise Goldston" society for the corrupt bitches, male AND female. And post a sign over the portals of the courthouse: "Suffer every wrong that can be done to you before coming here!"
It has been reported that "multiple" judges and staff members have reported severe delays in Judge Newman's disposition of cases and expressed concerns that her faculties may be impaired.
Coordinated baseless attacks, or natural consequences of a 95-year-old judge who can't recognize when the party's over?
There is another aspect to this situation. Judge Newman is one of the few judges (senior status or active) who came from the earliest days of the Federal Circuit. These include Judge Rich (who co-authored the 1952 Patent Act), Judge Markey, Judge Nies, Judge Linn, and many others. These judges were very learned and experienced in patent law and generally had a pro-patent stance. In recent years fewer judges on the court have such a background (although Chief Judge Moore is one of several who do) but influenced by several recent reversals of “settled” patent law by the Supreme Court Judge Newman has found herself on the dissenting side of many of the cases she hears. And Judge Newman is not meek about telling her brethren when she thinks they are wrong. I have no idea whether the Chief’s motivation has been influenced by these circumstances or not but it needs to be considered.
Is that likely to have influenced the staff members reported to have reported this judge's performance to supervisory authorities?
Judges should have no role in picking their successors.
Except the role they play in timing their retirements?
Unintentional comedy (once again) from Professor Blackman.
Or with respect to succession by a favored clerk?
Blackman isn't even trying.
At 95 Judge Newman is getting old, and it sounds like she really is slower than her younger colleagues. She may well need a reduced case load.
But she seems able to perform the basic functions of her job, albeit at a slower pace. Removing a judge from duty is strong medicine, and the Constitution provides special protections to prevent the possibility of judges being removed for political purposes.
The situation being described, with delays in issuing opinions and so forth, doesn’t strike me as rising to the level of removable disability. The strong presumption against removing a sitting federal judge from duty outweighs the need for efficiency.
Chief Judge Moore’s frustrations are understandable. But given the fundamental importance of not removing sitting federal judges except for genuinely extreme circumstances, which this isn’t, she will simply need to live with a slower colleague for the time being. Perhaps Congress will agree to adding another position, or to providing additional support staff to give Judge Newman more help.
I agree it would be better to have cases like this reviewed by an outside panel. However, I would not accuse Chief Judge Moore of undertaking a “stealth impeachment.” Although I think Judge Moore’s concerns are outweighed by the constitutional imperative of protecting the independence of the judiciary, her concerns about her court’s ability to meet its caseload are nonetheless legitimate and understandable. It is possible to disagree with Judge Moore without insinuating that she is behaving corruptly or acting out of political motives. Indeed, too ready a tendency to automatically move in that direction whenever one has a disagreement reflects an unfortunate coarseness of discourse. And it’s a coarseness of a sort that could potentially be a cover for shallowness of thought.
As a big fan of Judge Newman, whose dissents were essential reading to any patent attorney or IP litigator who wanted to be fully informed about how the patent law and related judge-made principles are applied, I dissent from kicking her off to senior status.
I argued cases before her and lost on both occasions, but came away knowing that she fairly questioned counsel and applied the law even-handedly.
Also, I argued a case before Judge Giles Rich, who died at 95 having never taken Senior status at the Federal Circuit. At oral argument, his first question misconstrued the patent claims, and he never got it straightened out during the entire hearing.
I argued motions in Chicago before USDJ Milton Shadur, who at 93 was extremely sharp of mind and in total control of proceedings.
To bump someone out because they're over 90 is usually not the reason that someone wants to bump them out.
Check out the two CAFC cases decided this month with C.J. Newman on the panel. Both had oral argument in the first half of Jan., and opinions issued in the first week of April - that's @90 days later. One case, People.A.I., involves three patents. In the second, a software copyright case, C.J. Newman wrote a lengthy dissent, concluding inter alia, that "The panel majority does not discuss the selection, combination, and arrangement of the program elements, although this is a foundation of software copyrightability, as illustrated in precedent, policy, and public understanding."
These cases were timely decided, and it is apparent that Judge Newman was up to speed on some complex subject matter. Listen to the oral arguments.
I dissent from kicking her off, and urge the matter go before a neutral panel.