Mandatory judicial retirement age can't be repealed under ERA, NY appeals court says
An appeals court in New York has upheld the state’s mandatory judicial retirement age of 70. (Image from Shutterstock)
An appeals court in New York has upheld the state’s mandatory judicial retirement age of 70.
In a decision on Thursday, the New York Supreme Court First Appellate Department rebuffed arguments from a trio of state judges who said the Equal Rights Amendment nullifies the mandatory retirement age by expanding the state constitution to prohibit discrimination based on age. Voters in the state approved the ERA in November 2024.
“The plain language of the ERA does not support petitioners’ contention that article VI, § 25 (b), the mandatory judicial retirement provision, has been implicitly repealed, as the ERA contains no reference to article VI, the eligibility of persons to serve as judges or justices, or the judicial retirement age,” the appeals court said in its opinion.
Petitioners cannot show the legislature intended for the ERA to repeal the mandatory judicial retirement age as its proposed aim was to protect “abortion rights, rights for the disabled and pregnant, and rights based on sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression,” the court also said. It additionally noted that lawmakers have introduced separate bills that address the judicial retirement age.
The petitioners plan to appeal to New York’s highest court, Bloomberg Law reports in its coverage of the decision.
Bloomberg Law also reports that there have been ongoing controversies involving elderly judges. In one high-profile case, Judge Pauline Newman, the oldest active federal judge, petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court last week to allow her to hear new cases. She was suspended over doubts about her cognitive abilities.
Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.
