Retired Judges' Amicus Brief Supports Judge Newman in NCLA Suit Against Her Suspension

Core Viewpoint - The case of Newman v. Moore highlights the unconstitutional suspension of Federal Circuit Judge Pauline Newman, with support from six retired federal judges and various legal organizations, emphasizing the need to uphold judicial independence and due process [1][3][4]. Group 1: Judicial Suspension Details - Judge Newman was suspended indefinitely from hearing new cases in March 2023 without due process, violating the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act [2]. - The suspension was initially for one year in September 2023 and was extended for another year in September 2024, marking an unprecedented action in American judicial history [2]. - The complete suspension of an Article III judge from all judicial functions is deemed unconstitutional [2]. Group 2: Legal Arguments and Support - The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed Judge Newman's constitutional claims, arguing that judicial review was precluded, which contradicts the presumption that all U.S. citizens have the right to have their federal constitutional claims heard [3]. - The retired judges' brief asserts that the U.S. Senate alone has the authority to remove Article III judges, and the indefinite suspension of Judge Newman usurps that authority, challenging the independence of all federal judges [3]. - Organizations such as the Bar Association of the District of Columbia, The Buckeye Institute, and Manhattan Institute have also filed amicus briefs in support of Judge Newman, reinforcing the defense of due process and judicial independence [3]. Group 3: Statements from NCLA - NCLA emphasizes the significance of the amicus brief from retired federal judges, noting the constitutional peril created by the Federal Circuit's actions and urging the D.C. Circuit to protect judicial independence [4]. - The rarity of retired federal judges submitting amicus briefs underscores the importance of their concerns and arguments, which should be carefully considered by the D.C. Circuit and the broader legal community [4].