Raymond E. Trafelet v. James R. Thompson, Governor of Illinois

1979-10-09

Headline: Court declines to review Illinois law forcing elected judges to retire at 70, leaving the age limit in place and making it harder for older judicial candidates to run.

Holding: The Court denied the petition for review, leaving the lower court’s lenient review of Illinois’ age‑70 judicial retirement rule in place while the constitutional question remains unresolved.

Real World Impact:

Leaves mandatory age 70 retirement rule in place for judges and candidates.
Keeps lower court’s less exacting review standard in effect.
Leaves the constitutional question unresolved at the Supreme Court level.

Topics: mandatory retirement, judicial elections, age limits, ballot access

Summary

Background

A group challenging Illinois officials brought a suit against a state law that requires elected judges to retire at age 70. They argued the rule violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments by limiting who can appear on the ballot and by restricting voters’ choices. A federal appeals court applied a more lenient test to the law, and the challengers asked the Supreme Court to review that decision.

Reasoning

The central question was whether a mandatory judicial retirement age is properly treated as a limit on ballot access that would demand strict judicial review, or whether it can be judged under a more relaxed rational-relationship test. The Supreme Court declined to take up the case and thus did not resolve that constitutional question. Because the Court denied review, the appeals court’s approach — which used the less exacting test — remains in effect for this dispute.

Real world impact

The practical result is that the state law requiring judges to step down at 70 stays in place for the parties involved, and older judges and prospective candidates who would be affected cannot return to the same question at the Supreme Court now. The denial is not a decision on the constitutional merits, but it leaves the lower-court outcome intact until or unless the issue returns to this Court.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice White dissented from the denial. He argued the Court should have reviewed the case because it raises a potentially important conflict about whether ballot-access limits must survive strict scrutiny, citing earlier decisions addressing voters’ ability to express political preferences.