Gregory v. Ashcroft

Background

Two Missouri state judges, both appointed by the Governor and retained in office through unopposed "yes-or-no" retention elections, sued the Governor after the State constitution required judges to retire at age seventy. They argued that the mandatory retirement rule violated the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Lower federal courts dismissed the suits and the Court of Appeals affirmed; the Supreme Court granted review and now affirms.

Reasoning

The Court first examined whether the ADEA applies to appointed state judges. Because the statute both extended coverage to states and carved out exceptions for certain high-level officials, the majority applied a cautious "plain statement" approach and declined to read the ADEA to cover appointed judges absent clear congressional language. On the constitutional claim, the Court applied ordinary rational-basis review for age classifications. It found several legitimate state interests — maintaining a fully capable judiciary, avoiding awkward removal procedures, and providing predictable pension and transition planning — and concluded the mandatory retirement rule is rationally related to those interests. The practical result: the State prevails and the retirement rule stands.

Real world impact

State judges subject to similar state constitutional or statutory retirement rules can be required to leave office at the stated age. The decision also leaves open statutory questions about ADEA coverage and produces differing views among the Justices about how to read the federal statute.

Dissents or concurrances

A concurrence (Justice White) agreed with the outcome but sharply disagreed with the majority’s plain-statement approach; a dissent (Justice Blackmun, joined by Justice Marshall) argued the ADEA covers appointed judges and would invalidate the retirement rule.