Gregory v. Ashcroft
115 L. Ed. 2d 410 · Supreme Court of the United States · 1991
Facts
Article V, § 26, of the Missouri Constitution mandates that all judges, other than municipal judges, retire at the age of seventy years. Petitioners, Judge Ellis Gregory, Jr., an associate circuit judge, and Judge Anthony P. Nugent, Jr., a Missouri Court of Appeals judge, were appointed to office by the Governor and retained through retention elections. Both judges are subject to this mandatory retirement provision. They filed suit against Governor John D. Ashcroft, challenging the validity of the provision.
Procedural history
Petitioners filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, which granted the Governor's motion to dismiss. The District Court held that Missouri’s appointed judges are not protected by the ADEA and that the mandatory retirement provision does not violate the Equal Protection Clause. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the dismissal. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
Issue
The legal question is whether Missouri's mandatory judicial retirement provision violates the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA). Additionally, the Court considers whether the provision comports with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Holding
The Court held that the ADEA does not apply to Missouri state judges. The Court also held that Missouri's mandatory retirement provision for judges does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Rule
For the ADEA, the Court applied a 'plain statement rule,' requiring Congress to make its intent 'unmistakably clear' when altering the constitutional balance between states and the federal government, especially regarding state officers. Since the ADEA's 'appointee on the policymaking level' exception is ambiguous regarding state judges, and Congress did not plainly state judges are included, the ADEA does not cover them. For the Equal Protection Clause, age is not a suspect classification, and serving as a judge is not a fundamental interest, so the rational basis test applies. The Court found Missouri's provision rational, serving legitimate state interests like maintaining judicial competency, avoiding difficult individual assessments, and promoting orderly attrition, especially given judges' unique accountability.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.