Gregory v. Ashcroft

The petitioners' counter-argument was that judges merely resolved factual disputes and decided questions of law and did not make policy. In addition, the two judges claimed that the phrase "appointees on the policymaking level" was closely related to other parts of the provision which referred to those in close, working relationships with the elected official who appointed them. Thus, because it was illegal for the judges to work closely with such an elected official as governor, that provision of the ADEA did not apply to judges.

The Court found that the governor's arguments were more persuasive because he relied on "the plain language" of the statute. The ADEA nowhere explicitly stated that judges were protected by it, and O'Connor wrote the Court would not read the ADEA to cover state judges unless Congress had made it clear that judges were protected by it. Moreover, by such interpretation, judges were not only "policymakers," but also persons "on policymaking level."

Turning to the petitioners' equal protection violation claim, the Court applied the rational basis standard of its equal protection analysis (which was satisfied if a state rationally furthered a legitimate state interest). The two judges argued that the state did not have rational basis to make two distinctions: between judges who had reached age 70 and younger judges, and between judges 70 and over and other state officials who were not subject to mandatory retirement. The Court again found respondent's arguments more reasonable. The attorney for the governor reasoned that the mandatory retirement provision helped a state uphold the public need for fully functioning judiciaries. Moreover, the mandatory retirement provision avoided tedious and perplexing determinations about which judge, at a certain age, was not physically and mentally qualified, and it increased the opportunity for young qualified persons to share in the judiciary. The Court found all these interests compelling for Missouri. It was rational to conclude that the threat of deterioration at age 70 was sufficiently great and the alternatives for removal from office (infrequent retention elections in which judges ran unopposed, voluntary retirement, or even impeachment) were sufficiently inadequate. Thus, Missouri's mandatory retirement provision did not violate the Equal Protection Clause.