FedCircuitBlog

Today, Judge Christopher R. Cooper of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a memorandum opinion and order in Judge Newman’s lawsuit, which asserts facial and as-applied constitutional challenges to the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act and the statutory provision creating circuit judicial councils. The opinion and order denies Judge Newman’s motion for a preliminary injunction that would have “prohibit[ed] Defendants from continuing her suspension from new case assignments and from proceeding with any further disciplinary proceedings until the matter is transferred to the judicial council of another circuit.” The opinion and order also grants the defendants’ motion to dismiss all but three of Judge Newman’s claims based on lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. Here is the introduction to the opinion and order.

This morning the Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability of the Judicial Conference of the United States released a memorandum of decision unanimously denying a petition filed by Judge Newman. That petition asked the Committee to review the order of the Federal Circuit’s Judicial Council that suspended Judge Newman for the period of at least one year. Today’s memorandum includes the following findings:

• “We find that the Chief Circuit Judge and the Federal Circuit Judicial Council did not abuse their discretion by declining to request a transfer”;
• “we find no error in the Judicial Council’s conclusion that, based on the evidence gathered by the Special Committee, there was a reasonable basis for requesting that Judge Newman undergo a medical evaluation;” and
• “[w]e find that the sanction is consistent with sanctions imposed in a variety of contexts under the Act, and a one-year suspension of cases is not grossly in excess of other suspensions imposed under the [Judicial Conduct and Disability] Act.”

Here is the introduction and a link to the memorandum.

Last week, the Supreme Court granted petition for certiorari in Harrow v. Department of Defense. In this case, the petitioner asked the Court to consider whether the deadline to file a petition for the Federal Circuit to review a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board is jurisdictional. This matters because, as it stands, the Federal Circuit has concluded that the deadline is jurisdictional and, as a result, not subject to equitable tolling. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit announced that amendments to the Federal Circuit Rules go into effect today. As part of implementing various changes, the court updated its rules, forms, guides, and fee schedule. Here is the text of today’s announcement and links to various related documents.

This morning the Federal Circuit released additional materials pertaining to the ongoing investigation into Judge Newman’s fitness to serve as a judge on the Federal Circuit. These materials include a redacted audio recording and various letters and orders, including a 375-page document containing a 73-page unanimous per curiam order of the court’s Judicial Council dated today along with numerous redacted supporting attachments. Most significantly, today’s order suspends Judge Newman for the period of at least one year. The order states:

1. “Judge Newman shall not be permitted to hear any cases, at the panel or en banc level, for a period of one year beginning with the issuance of this Order, subject to consideration of renewal if Judge Newman’s refusal to cooperate continues after that time and to consideration of  modification or rescission if justified by an end of the refusal to cooperate.”
2. “The Committee shall maintain jurisdiction over this matter.”

Here is the full text of this morning’s announcement, with links to the released materials, including today’s order and attachments along with prior letters and orders and a redacted audio recording.

This morning the Federal Circuit released additional materials in the ongoing investigation into Judge Newman’s fitness to serve as a judge on the Federal Circuit. These materials include a group of letters and orders and, significantly, a July 31 report and recommendation of the special committee conducting the investigation. That report and recommendation:

• finds the committee had authority to enter its orders,
• concludes a reasonable basis for requiring medical examinations and the production of medical records,
• finds Judge Newman’s refusal to cooperate with the committee’s orders is not justified by any good cause and constitutes misconduct,
• and recommends Judge Newman not be permitted to participate in new cases for at least the next year or until she cooperates with the committee’s investigation into her fitness to serve as a judge.

Here is the full text of this morning’s announcement, with links to the released materials, including the report and recommendation.

This morning, the Federal Circuit granted LKQ Corporation’s petition for rehearing en banc in LKQ Corporation v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC, a design patent case addressing obviousness. In its petition, LKQ asked the en banc court to review two questions related to obviousness in the context of design patents. In its order granting en banc rehearing,the Federal Circuit ordered the parties to address several related questions in supplemental briefs. Here are the details.

Monday, the Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari in Rudisill v. McDonough, a veterans case decided by the Federal Circuit. The Supreme Court will review whether “a veteran who has served two separate and distinct periods of qualifying service under the Montgomery GI Bill, . . .  and under the Post-9/11 GI Bill, . . . is entitled to receive a total of 48 months of education benefits as between both programs, without first exhausting the Montgomery benefit in order to obtain the more generous Post-9/11 benefit.” Here are the details.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit announced the public release of additional prior orders and letters in the ongoing investigation into Judge Newman’s fitness to serve as a judge. Notably, the orders continue to prohibit Judge Newman from being assigned to new panels of cases, and one order indicates the Committee conducting the investigation “will focus on the question whether Judge Newman’s refusal to cooperate with the Committee’s investigation constitutes misconduct.” To that end, the Committee also set a deadline of July 5 for Judge Newman to submit “a brief limited to addressing the question whether Judge Newman’s refusal to undergo examinations, to provide medical records, and to sit for an interview with the Committee as described in the May 16 Order constitute misconduct and the appropriate remedy if the Committee were to make a finding of misconduct.” The Committee also indicated it will hear oral argument on the matter on July 13 in a closed-door hearing. Here is the full text of the announcement, with links to the orders.

Today, the Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari in Vidal v. Elster, a trademark case decided by the Federal Circuit. The Supreme Court will review whether the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s “refusal to register a mark under Section 1052(c) [of the Lanham Act] violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment when the mark contains criticism of a government official or public figure.” Here are the details.