Pauline Newman, a 98-year-old federal appeals judge who was suspended by her colleagues over concerns about her mental fitness, has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene in her effort to return to hearing cases, her attorneys confirmed Thursday.

Three years ago, judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit barred Newman from taking on new cases indefinitely, citing concerns about her ability to continue serving on the bench. Newman later filed a lawsuit challenging the decision, arguing that the suspension is unconstitutional.

The dispute has evolved into a prolonged legal battle that has drawn national attention, highlighting broader questions about age and mental fitness among members of the federal judiciary — an issue increasingly discussed in Washington.

Newman strongly rejects claims that she is unfit to serve and is asking the Supreme Court to overturn a lower court ruling that blocked judicial review of her suspension.

In their petition, her attorneys warned that the case could have serious implications for judicial independence.

“Other judges watching what is happening to Judge Newman may wonder whether a similar fate could await them if they fall out of favor with court leadership,” the petition states.

The appeal has not yet been formally docketed by the Supreme Court, but Newman’s legal team provided a copy of the filing. The justices are expected to review the request during a closed-door conference in the coming months. The Supreme Court accepts only a small fraction of the cases presented to it each year.

Newman was nominated to the Federal Circuit by President Ronald Reagan in 1984. The court specializes in appeals involving issues such as intellectual property, patent law, and government contracts. Over the years, Newman became widely known for her influential opinions on patent law and her willingness to dissent, earning the nickname “The Great Dissenter.”

Under the U.S. Constitution, federal judges hold their positions for life unless they are impeached by the House of Representatives and convicted by the Senate. While Newman has not been formally removed from the bench, her colleagues have prevented her from participating in new cases since early 2023.

As a result, she has been sidelined from several major legal disputes before the Federal Circuit, including high-profile litigation over President Donald Trump’s emergency tariffs. During one hearing last year, Newman attended the arguments from the public gallery, sitting just a few rows away from her fellow judges.

Her attorneys argue that allowing judges to sideline a Senate-confirmed colleague without proper judicial review threatens the independence of the judiciary.

“This Court cannot allow the internal politics of a court to remove a Senate-confirmed judge from active service,” her lawyers wrote in their filing to the Supreme Court. “Such actions risk undermining the constitutional protections that safeguard judicial independence.”

The conflict began in spring 2023, when Federal Circuit Chief Judge Kimberly Moore initiated misconduct proceedings under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act after unsuccessfully attempting to persuade Newman to retire.

According to court documents, several unnamed court employees described Newman’s behavior during interviews as “paranoid,” “agitated,” and at times “bizarre.” Some alleged that she required assistance with routine tasks and had difficulty retaining information. Others claimed she believed the court had tapped her phone lines.

Newman’s colleagues ultimately suspended her from hearing new cases after she declined to undergo medical examinations requested by the court. The suspension has been repeatedly extended, most recently in August.

Newman has consistently denied the allegations, pointing to three separate mental evaluations conducted by different physicians, which she says demonstrate she remains fit to serve.

Shortly after the suspension, she filed a lawsuit against her fellow judges, arguing that the disciplinary process violated her constitutional rights to due process. Her legal team contends the matter should have been transferred to another court rather than handled internally by her colleagues.

Last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that existing legal precedent prevented it from reviewing Newman’s claims. However, the court emphasized that its ruling did not mean her constitutional arguments lacked merit.

“Judge Newman has raised important and serious questions about whether these proceedings comply with constitutional due process protections,” the court wrote at the time.

Because that precedent does not bind the Supreme Court, Newman’s attorneys are asking the justices to review the case.

Newman is represented by the New Civil Liberties Alliance, a libertarian public-interest law firm, along with prominent conservative attorney Jonathan Mitchell, who has argued several cases before the Supreme Court, including representing Donald Trump in his successful appeal against Colorado’s attempt to remove him from the 2024 presidential ballot.