Aging NY judges challenge ancient state law that would force them to retire at 76

A group of aging judges have taken legal action against the state of New York regarding an outdated law that mandates retirement at the age of 76.

The three judges, all in their seventies, assert that the mandatory retirement age established in 1869 constitutes age discrimination as defined by New York’s Equal Rights Amendment. Their claim was submitted to the Manhattan Supreme Court.

Presently, judges are compelled to retire at 70, a rule that originated when life expectancy was significantly shorter, as noted in their lawsuit.

However, judges can extend their tenure until 76 through a special certification process, after which they are “arbitrarily” required to leave their positions based solely on their age, the filing contends.

The Equal Rights Amendment — ratified in 2024 through a ballot initiative — forbids age discrimination “on par with discrimination based on race and religion, which makes policies that support it constitutionally questionable,” according to the lawsuit.

“At the time the mandatory retirement age was established, living to 70 was a rarity, but most individuals today live substantially longer,” the lawsuit claims.

The legal document highlights that there are no age restrictions for members of the state Legislature. If lawmakers in Albany had to comply with the same regulations, 30 members from the Assembly and Senate would need to retire this year.

“This case marks a pivotal moment in legal history,” remarked retired state appellate judge David B. Saxe, who is among the legal team for the aging judges. 

“The judicial system is losing some of the most capable individuals to adjudicate cases and appeals,” Saxe expressed to The Post. “This is a significant loss not just for them, but also for the justice system. We have an opportunity to let these judges continue their exemplary work.” 

Since the age limits were enacted, the state’s judicial system has implemented various measures to ensure judges can competently perform their duties, including a biennial certification that encompasses physical and mental assessments, and mechanisms to address misconduct from the bench, Saxe pointed out.

“Being forced into retirement not only has personal repercussions, but it also negatively impacts the institution,” said plaintiff and appellate judge Robert J. Miller, who turned 76 in May.

If he had to adhere to current regulations, he would have to step down from his position at the Brooklyn courthouse at year’s end.

Miller voiced concerns that this would further complicate the court, which is already “overwhelmed with record-high caseloads.”

“Removing me and other justices in similar circumstances based solely on age undermines the judiciary’s ability to provide justice in a timely and effective manner,” Miller stated.

In 2020, Saxe and his firm, Morrison Cohen, successfully challenged a controversial effort to oust nearly 50 older judges amid state budget cuts during the COVID-19 pandemic.