Facts
-
Missouri’s Constitution required all state judges (other than municipal judges) to retire at age 70.
-
Ellis Gregory, Jr. and Anthony P. Nugent, Jr., Missouri judges appointed under a nonpartisan plan and later retained through retention elections, were subject to the mandatory retirement rule.
-
The judges sued the Missouri Governor, alleging the retirement provision:
- conflicted with the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), and
- violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause by treating judges differently from other state officials without mandatory retirement.
-
The federal district court dismissed the complaint, concluding that appointed judges were excluded from ADEA coverage and that the age classification satisfied rational basis review.
-
The Eighth Circuit affirmed, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Issues
- Whether appointed Missouri state judges are “employees” covered by the ADEA, or instead excluded as “appointee[s] on the policymaking level,” leaving Missouri’s mandatory retirement rule unpreempted.
- Whether requiring judges to retire at age 70 violates the Equal Protection Clause.
Decision
- The Supreme Court affirmed (7–2).
- The Court held that the ADEA did not apply because appointed state judges fall within the statute’s exclusion for “appointee[s] on the policymaking level.”
- The Court held the mandatory retirement rule did not violate equal protection because it was rationally related to legitimate state interests.
- Justice O’Connor authored the majority opinion; Justice Blackmun, joined by Justice Marshall, dissented.
Legal Principles
- When a federal statute would interfere with a state’s authority to set qualifications for its high officials, the statute is read to have that effect only if Congress makes its intent unmistakably clear (a clear-statement rule tied to federal–state balance concerns).
- Where statutory text is ambiguous on whether it reaches core state governmental functions, the ambiguity is resolved against interpreting the statute to intrude on those functions absent a clear congressional statement.
- For equal protection, age classifications are not suspect, and there is no fundamental right to hold state judicial office; rational basis review applies.
- Under rational basis review, a state may use general age-based rules to address fitness and administrative manageability, and need not draw lines with precision.
Conclusion
The Court upheld Missouri’s mandatory judicial retirement age, concluding that the ADEA does not clearly cover appointed state judges and that the age-based retirement rule is constitutionally valid under rational basis review.