2026年6月15日 / 美国东部时间上午10:32 / 哥伦比亚广播公司新闻
华盛顿讯 美国最高法院周一驳回了宝琳·纽曼法官重返联邦上诉法院履职的诉求。此前纽曼因履职能力受到质疑，被暂停审理案件。
现年98岁的纽曼自1984年起在联邦巡回上诉法院任职。该法院成立于1982年，负责审理涉及国际贸易、专利、商标、退伍军人福利以及针对美国政府的金钱索赔案件的上诉。
在联邦巡回法院任职的四十余年间，纽曼撰写了超过300份反对意见，为她赢得了“伟大反对者”的绰号。
但三年前，由在职巡回法官组成的联邦巡回法院司法委员会暂停了纽曼的案件审理工作。该法院首席法官金伯莉·摩尔还告知纽曼，她可以选择退休或考虑担任资深法官——这是一种半退休状态，法官可承担较轻的案件量。
在纽曼拒绝这两个选项后，摩尔发布命令，公开了针对这位时年96岁法官的司法投诉，并认定“有合理理由相信纽曼法官的健康状况已使其丧失担任在职法官的履职能力，且她习惯性的案件拖延有损司法高效运行”。
比尔·奥利里/《华盛顿邮报》/盖蒂图片社
摩尔的文件提及纽曼在2021年夏季遭遇的健康问题以及2022年的一次晕厥事件，并表示联邦巡回法院的法官和工作人员都担忧纽曼无法跟上工作负荷。
摩尔与由两名联邦巡回法院法官组成的特别委员会随后对纽曼的继续任职能力展开调查，并命令纽曼接受神经科和神经心理学检查。该小组还要求她提交医疗记录并参与面谈。
尽管纽曼提供了两名医生出具的专家报告，但委员会建议“一年内不得允许纽曼审理任何案件”，该禁令可续期。联邦巡回法院司法委员会于2023年9月批准了该建议。
纽曼请求美国司法会议（联邦法院的政策制定机构）的一个小组审查对她的停职决定，但该小组在2024年2月驳回了她的主张。
联邦巡回法院随后分别于2024年9月和2025年8月两次将对纽曼的停职令续期一年。
在停职期间，纽曼对摩尔及其联邦巡回法院的同事提起诉讼，并试图阻止司法委员会今后对她采取行动。这位法官辩称，该小组实质上罢免了她的职务，违反了宪法规定的终身任职保护，且剥夺了她的正当法律程序权利。
哥伦比亚特区巡回上诉法院最终驳回了纽曼的诉求，认定《残疾人法案》禁止诉讼当事人就司法委员会的权限提出特定宪法性质疑。
在敦促最高法院受理此案时，纽曼的律师声称摩尔正在规避宪法对联邦法官的保护，企图排挤一位她不愿共事的法官。他们还指责联邦巡回法院的法官试图压制一位经常发表反对意见的同僚。
“由经常与同僚持反对意见的知名法官的同僚们通过行政程序罢免该法官，且司法机构拒绝审查此案的实质内容，这破坏了作为我们宪法设计重要基础的司法独立，”纽曼的律师在一份文件中写道。“如今，任何与首席法官或同僚意见不合的法官都必须担心，类似手段是否会被用来罢免他们。”
代表摩尔及其他法官的美国司法部敦促最高法院驳回纽曼的上诉。
代理纽曼的新公民自由联盟表示，对最高法院驳回上诉感到失望，但表示将继续为她恢复职务而努力。
“这对联邦司法机构的独立性而言是黑暗的一天，”该组织主席马克·切诺维奇在一份声明中说。“此案的调卷令申请被驳回，意味着纽曼法官关于正当法律程序以及对首席法官摩尔和联邦巡回法院司法委员会对待她的方式的投诉，从未也永远不会由第三条法院就实质内容作出裁决。这完全不可原谅，也确实令人费解。”
Supreme Court declines to take up suspended 98-year-old judge’s bid to hear cases again
June 15, 2026 / 10:32 AM EDT / CBS News
Washington — The Supreme Court on Monday turned away Judge Pauline Newman’s bid to return to service on a federal appeals court after she was suspended from hearing cases due to concerns about her fitness to serve.
Newman, who is 98, has served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit since 1984. Established in 1982, the Federal Circuit hears appeals in cases involving international trade, patents, trademarks, veterans’ benefits and money claims against the U.S. government.
Across her more than four decades on the Federal Circuit, Newman has authored more than 300 dissenting opinions, earning her the nickname the “Great Dissenter.”
But three years ago, the Judicial Council for the Federal Circuit, which consists of the circuit judges in active service, suspended Newman from hearing cases. The court’s chief judge, Kimberly Moore, also told Newman she could either retire or consider senior status, a form of semi-retirement in which judges take on a lighter caseload.
After Newman refused either option, Moore entered an order that identified a judicial complaint against the then-96-year-old judge and found “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.”
Judge Pauline Newman in her office in Washington, D.C., in 2023. Bill O’Leary/The Washington Post via Getty Images
Moore’s filing referenced health issues Newman suffered in the summer of 2021 and a fainting episode in 2022, and said judges and staff on the Federal Circuit had expressed concerns about Newman’s inability to keep up with her workload.
Moore and a special committee of two Federal Circuit judges then investigated Newman’s fitness to continue serving and ordered the judge to submit to neurological and neuropsychological testing. The panel also requested she turn over medical records and participate in an interview.
While Newman provided expert reports from two doctors, the committee recommended Newman “not be permitted to hear any cases” for one year, subject to renewal. The Judicial Council approved the recommendation in September 2023.
Newman asked a panel of the Judicial Conference of the United States, the policy-making body for the federal courts, to review her suspension, though it rejected her arguments in February 2024.
The Federal Circuit then renewed Newman’s suspension for another year in September 2024, and again in August 2025.
Amid her suspension, Newman filed a lawsuit against Moore and her colleagues on the Federal Circuit and sought to prevent the Judicial Council from taking action against her in the future. The judge argued that the panel violated the Constitution by effectively removing her from office despite life tenure protections and denied her due process.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ultimately ruled against Newman, finding that the Disability Act prevents litigants from bringing certain constitutional challenges to a judicial council’s authority.
In urging the Supreme Court to take up her case, Newman’s lawyers claimed that Moore was circumventing the Constitution’s protections for federal judges in an attempt to sideline a judge she doesn’t want to serve with. They also accused the Federal Circuit judges of trying to silence a colleague who often dissents.
“This administrative removal of a judge who is famous for dissenting from her colleagues, by those same colleagues, with judicial refusal to review the merits of the action, undermines the judicial independence that is a vital foundation of our constitutional design,” Newman’s lawyers wrote in a filing. “Every judge who gets crosswise with her chief judge or her colleagues must now worry whether similar tactics could be used to remove them.”
The Justice Department, which represented Moore and the other judges,urged the Supreme Court to turn away Newman’s case.
The New Civil Liberties Alliance, which is representing Newman, said it is disappointed in the high court’s denial of the appeal, but said it would continue to push for her reinstatement.
“It is a dark day for the independence of the federal judiciary,” Mark Chenoweth, the group’s president, said in a statement. “The cert denial in this case means that Judge Newman’s due process and other complaints about the way Chief Judge Moore and the Federal Circuit Judicial Council have treated her never have and never will receive a merits decision from an Article III court. That is utterly inexcusable and truly inexplicable.”
发表回复