## Facts

- The Louisiana Constitution set a mandatory retirement limit for judges: a judge may not remain in office beyond age 70, though a judge who turns 70 during a term may complete that term.
- Judges Harry Cantrell and Clark were sitting Louisiana judges who were over age 70.
- Their judicial terms were set to expire on December 31, 2020.
- Despite the constitutional age limit, the judges intended to qualify and run for reelection to new terms that would begin after their current terms ended.
- The judges filed suit against the State of Louisiana seeking to invalidate, avoid, or render inoperative the mandatory retirement provision as a bar to their reelection efforts.
- The litigation reached the Supreme Court of Louisiana by writ application in consolidated proceedings, with election-related timing making prompt review necessary.

## Issues

1. Does La. Const. art. V, § 23(B)’s mandatory judicial retirement age violate the Louisiana Constitution’s equal protection guarantee (La. Const. art. I, § 3)?
2. Does the mandatory retirement provision conflict with Louisiana’s constitutional protections for freedom of speech (La. Const. art. I, § 7) or the separation-of-powers clause (La. Const. art. II, § 2)?
3. Did the 2018 adoption of La. Const. art. I, § 10.1 (disqualifying certain convicted felons from seeking or holding public office) tacitly repeal, deactivate, or otherwise render ineffective the judicial retirement-age provision in art. V, § 23(B)?

## Decision

- Writ granted; the Supreme Court of Louisiana exercised its supervisory authority to decide the consolidated constitutional challenges.
- The court rejected the judges’ equal protection challenge to the age-70 retirement rule.
- The court rejected the arguments that art. V, § 23(B) violates the state constitution’s free speech or separation-of-powers provisions.
- The court rejected the claim that La. Const. art. I, § 10.1 tacitly repealed or rendered inactive La. Const. art. V, § 23(B).
- As a result, the judges could complete their then-current terms (as the constitution permits), but they could not qualify for reelection to serve a new term extending beyond age 70 absent a constitutional amendment.

## Legal Principles

- A mandatory retirement age for judges that is set by the state constitution is a valid constitutional qualification/limit on judicial tenure, and courts will enforce it according to its text.
- Age-based mandatory retirement for judges does not, by itself, violate Louisiana’s equal protection guarantee; the Louisiana Supreme Court treated the validity of such provisions as settled by precedent (including prior Louisiana authority and cited federal and sister-state decisions).
- A constitutional eligibility limit for judicial office is not invalid merely because it affects a person’s ability to run for office; it is treated as part of the constitution’s design for the judiciary rather than as an unconstitutional restraint on political speech.
- Separation of powers is not violated when the constitution itself allocates authority and sets conditions on holding judicial office; the limitation is part of the constitutional structure.
- Tacit repeal of one constitutional provision by another is disfavored; later-enacted disqualifications (such as a felon-in-office ban) can coexist with an existing judicial retirement-age rule unless the provisions cannot be reconciled.
- If voters or the legislature want a different retirement age for judges, the proper remedy is constitutional amendment through the procedures the constitution provides, not judicial invalidation of the existing constitutional text.

## Conclusion

The Louisiana Supreme Court held that La. Const. art. V, § 23(B)’s age-70 mandatory judicial retirement rule remains valid and enforceable, rejected equal protection, free speech, separation-of-powers, and implied-repeal theories, and left any change to the retirement-age policy to the constitutional amendment process.


Cantrell v. State, 2020 WL 4251393 (2020)