## Facts

- Article V, § 16(b) of the Pennsylvania Constitution requires judges to retire at age 70 (as amended to require retirement on December 31 of the year the judge turns 70).
- Petitioners were Pennsylvania judges nearing age 70 who had been elected or retained to 10-year terms.
- Petitioners alleged that mandatory retirement would force them to leave office before completing their terms.
- Petitioners filed actions asserting that enforcement of § 16(b) violated Pennsylvania constitutional guarantees of equal protection and due process and unlawfully interfered with an asserted right to serve a full term.
- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court assumed extraordinary jurisdiction over the cases filed in the Commonwealth Court.

## Issues

1. Whether Article V, § 16(b)’s mandatory retirement age for judges violates the Pennsylvania Constitution’s equal protection and due process guarantees.
2. Whether the constitutional retirement provision impermissibly conflicts with, or “impinges” on, a judge’s asserted right to serve a full 10-year elected or retained term.
3. Whether the court should revisit precedent upholding the same mandatory-retirement provision.

## Decision

- The court rejected the challenge and held petitioners failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
- The court declined to nullify or enjoin enforcement of Article V, § 16(b).
- The court remanded to the Commonwealth Court with directions to dismiss the actions.
- A concurring justice agreed in the result, emphasizing the controlling force of the constitution’s text as adopted by the electorate.

## Legal Principles

- Constitutional provisions are construed together as one integrated document; courts seek to reconcile provisions and avoid treating one clause as invalid based on another absent a clear, unavoidable conflict.
- Mandatory judicial retirement at age 70 is a constitutionally permissible qualification/limitation on holding judicial office and is read together with the constitutional term-of-office provisions.
- Age-based mandatory retirement for judges is evaluated under rational-basis principles; it may be justified by legitimate governmental interests such as maintaining judicial competence and ensuring orderly turnover.
- A judge has no fundamental state constitutional right to complete a 10-year term if the judge reaches the constitutionally mandated retirement age during that term.
- An intra-constitutional claim that one provision is invalid because it violates another is theoretically possible only in exceptional circumstances; enforcement of an explicit, voter-ratified structural choice governing the judiciary is not displaced by generalized Article I claims on this record.

## Conclusion

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court upheld the constitution’s mandatory retirement rule for judges at age 70, treated it as an office qualification that limits service even during an ongoing term, relied on controlling precedent, and ordered dismissal of the judges’ equal protection and due process challenges.


Driscoll v. Corbett, 69 A.3d 197 (Pa. 2013)