Facts of the Case
Under Article V, Section 26, of Missouri's Constitution, state court judges must retire at the age of seventy. The two petitioners in this case, both of whom were Missouri state judges, challenged the state constitution's retirement requirement on legislative and constitutional grounds.
Questions
Did Missouri's mandatory retirement requirement for its state court judges violate the the 1967 federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause?
Conclusions
-
No and no. Missouri's mandatory retirement requirement for its state court judges did not violate either the ADEA or the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. In addition to emphasizing Missouri's, or any other state's, Tenth Amendment right to define the qualifications of its highest state officials, the Court held that the regulations of the ADEA did not apply to "policy-making" appointees such as state court judges. With respect to the petitioners' Equal Protection challenge, the Court employed a rational basis test to examine whether a rational relationship existed between Missouri's goal of promoting competent state court judges and its retirement requirement. Noting the connection between increasing age and declining mental and physical capacities, the Court held that Missouri's retirement requirement for judges who reach the age of seventy was not unreasonable.
Christie v. NCAA: Anti-Commandeering or Bust
Federalist Society Review, Volume 18
Note from the Editor: This article argues that the Supreme Court should find unconstitutional the...
Does EPA’s Clean Power Plan Proposal Violate the States’ Sovereign Rights?
Engage Volume 16, Issue 1
Note from the Editor: This article discusses the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan under...
The Legality of Executive Action after King v. Burwell
Engage Volume 16, Issue 1
Note from the Editor: This article discusses the legality of possible executive actions if the...
FCC Preemption of State Restrictions on Government-owned Broadband Networks: An Affront to Federalism
Engage Volume 16, Issue 1
Note from the Editor: This article is about the Federal Communications Commission’s Order preempting state...
The Sotomayor Nomination, Part I
Online Debate
On May 26, President Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor to replace David Souter as an Associate...
Federalism Revived? The Printz and City of Boerne Decisions
Federalism & Separation of Powers Practice Group Newsletter - Volume 2, Issue 1, Spring 1998
The following program was sponsored by the Federalism and Separation of Powers Practice Group at...
Supreme Court Reaffirms State Sovereignty
Federalism & Separation of Powers Practice Group Newsletter - Volume 1, Issue 1, Fall 1996
The most significant decision involving federalism that was handed down during the October 1995 Term--indeed,...
