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
- 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)?
- 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)?
- 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 I, § 10.1 tacitly repealed or rendered inactive La.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.