In a decision that has sparked considerable debate about age, mental fitness, and judicial independence, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has announced the extension of Judge Pauline Newman's suspension for another year. This decision comes as part of an ongoing investigation into whether the 98-year-old judge is still capable of fulfilling her duties on the bench.

Judge Newman, a respected figure with a history of having her dissenting opinions affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been under scrutiny by her colleagues at the Federal Circuit. Despite undergoing neurological exams by leading medical professionals who support her mental acuity, the court is demanding further testing, specifically "a full neuropsychological battery of tests."

The controversy initially gained traction when incorrect claims circulated that Judge Newman had suffered a heart attack and had a stent placed, which she fervently denied. “Saying and publishing that I had a heart attack when I never did, saying that I have a stent. It’s easy enough to find if someone has a stent," Newman stated, highlighting the misinformation spread about her health.

In response to the court's latest decision, Newman expressed her concerns about the potential broader implications of her case. "Thus far my accusers have avoided any litigation or objective judicial review that could expose the truth, and I am concerned lest these travesties of procedure and law acquire precedential force, placing a cloud on any judge of divergent policy or politics, or even a judge who writes dissents," she remarked. Newman fears that this scenario could undermine public trust in the judiciary and threaten the foundational principles of constitutional democracy.

This situation raises important questions about the criteria for determining a judge's fitness to serve, particularly in an age where life expectancy and the capacity to remain mentally and physically active have dramatically increased. It also touches on the delicate balance between ensuring competency on the bench and protecting the independence and rights of judicial figures.

As this case unfolds, it continues to be a focal point for discussions on ageism, judicial ethics, and the mechanisms in place for assessing the capability of judges to execute their responsibilities effectively.

For more detailed coverage on this ongoing judicial saga, visit [Reuters](https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/us-appeals-court-extends-suspension-98-year-old-judge-fitness-probe-2025-07-28/).

Additional background and earlier reports on Judge Newman’s suspension can be found on [Above the Law](https://abovethelaw.com/2024/09/appeals-court-extends-pauline-newmans-suspension/).