By now you’ve seen the headlines characterizing a federal judge in Dallas as having “abandoned her post.” Judge Ada Brown of the Northern District of Texas has since had her cases reassigned and been ordered to sit for a psychiatric exam. In the early hours of a Saturday morning, she emailed the confidential file on herself to approximately 140 judges, lawyers, and members of the press, which was… ill-advised.
Having spent years complaining about the risk of federal judges abusing the disability process to shove colleagues out of their jobs, this episode illustrates why this process exists.
In the Fifth Circuit Judicial Council’s order, the investigating committee found “a reasonable basis to conclude that Judge Brown suffers from a temporary or permanent mental condition that interferes with her ability to perform the responsibilities of her office,” supported by a ten-item list that includes recusing from more than 40 cases since June, and:
Making unsubstantiated claims that orders are being entered in her cases or are being altered by others without her permission and/or with criminal intent, failing to provide evidence of such claims upon request, and requesting to have those claims investigated by the Texas Rangers.
Brown denies having any mental health issue, and to date she hasn’t been diagnosed with anything. “Your colleagues think you might be unwell” shouldn’t be grounds for losing your docket, as we’ve been pointing out ever since the Federal Circuit sidelined Judge Pauline Newman with a series of annual votes where they renew her pocket impeachment like a magazine subscription.
But, unlike Judge Brown’s situation, Judge Newman wants to work. Newman has undergone a neurological exam with a leading expert from George Washington University. The rest of her circuit just shrugged and demanded that she submit to their hand-picked expert. Brown, according to the complaint Chief Judge Elrod flagged on October 1, told her staff to “stop work on anything you are doing for me.” Other than recusal notices and three arrest warrants, she “has issued no orders since August 10, 2026.” And, of course, Brown has yet to submit to any exam.
The Federal Circuit’s Newman suspension ran a year at a time. The Fifth Circuit’s order runs “for a period of three months or until further order of the Council (whichever comes first),” which is what the statute’s “temporary basis for a time certain” should look like.
Brown is also a district judge being reviewed by the circuit, as opposed to Newman’s case where she’s being penalized by the same colleagues who brought the complaint. Newman’s matter was only recently sent to the Eleventh Circuit to allow outside judges to evaluate the case. The Fifth Circuit has agreed to interview Brown under oath on October 30.
The mental health claims gobble up media attention, but the second line of inquiry might be more damning. Per the Council:
the Committee learned that for several years Judge Brown habitually and unduly delayed ruling on motions and routinely closed cases with pending motions so that such cases did not appear on her Civil Justice Reform Act list.
Judges hate being on the public naughty list for having motions sitting idle for more than six months, which is why we have that list in the first place. If the Fifth Circuit is right, Judge Brown found a workaround to keep the public from knowing just how little she was doing. The backlog stands at 78 undecided motions.
This predates whatever happened over the summer. We don’t want to downplay the importance of mental health, but the dereliction of duty appears to have been going on a lot longer.
Brown’s October 17 message reportedly said she had waived confidentiality and sent certain orders “to the press to become public.” Unfortunately, the batch also swept in two sealed documents from unrelated attorney-discipline matters, so some lawyers who had nothing to do with this saga had their worst nightmares forwarded to a newsroom.
Whatever happens with Brown’s case, the Fifth Circuit is correctly keeping it confined to a limited time. The power to decide whether a judge stays on the bench belongs to Congress, and judges shouldn’t have the freedom to functionally end another judge’s career by scheduling regular renewals of their suspensions. Rep. Scott Fitzgerald’s proposed two-year cap would strike the ideal balance, allowing a council to act quickly to address emerging issues, while setting a firm cap on when Congress must make a final determination.
Brown’s case is the one the statute was written for. And even if Newman’s fit the statute initially… three years in, it’s an abuse of authority.
Earlier: Judge Pauline Newman’s Shadow Impeachment Finally Transferred To An Independent Court
New Bill Might Finally Put A Stop To Judge Pauline Newman’s Stealth Impeachment
Joe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter or Bluesky if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news.
