Complaints against federal judges
Justin Paul Dreiling v. United States
In brief
- Where it stands
- Dismissed
Petition denied.
- What it’s about
- Justin Paul Dreiling’s petition says an order from the Federal Circuit’s Judicial Council barred Judge Pauline Newman from taking part in his appeal.
- Who it affects
- Dreiling received no Supreme Court decision on the legal questions raised in his petition.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
Dreiling challenges the law behind that order, asks whether the Council members had to step aside, and argues that his claims fit the Tucker Act.
Dreiling’s petition says the Federal Circuit’s Judicial Council barred Judge Pauline Newman from taking part in his appeal. He challenged the law behind that order, whether the Council members had to step aside, and whether his claims fit the Tucker Act.
Dreiling’s petition raised questions about the law governing judicial discipline, recusal rules, and his claims under the Tucker Act.
Question presented
1. Whether 28 U.S.C. § 354(a)(2)(A)(i) is unconstitutional? 2. Does 28 U.S.C. § 455, when an appeal brought before the Federal Circuit alleges claims against the Judicial Council of the Federal Circuit, require the members of Judicial Council to recuse themselves, even though the named defendant is the United States? 3. Do the petitioner’s original claims satisfy the plain language of the Tucker Act, and if so, is he entitled to rely upon that plain language?
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
New analysis added
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Show 2 moreShow fewer
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Brief added: Petition
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.