Gregory v. Ashcroft

Every state is entitled to a certain level of sovereignty. In turn, state sovereignty is carefully balanced with the sovereignty of the federal government. In spite of this balance, Congress has power to impose a federal statute on a state statute or constitution, but does not usually exercise that power lightly. Fearing that Congress's intentions could be misread, the Supreme Court applied "the plain statement" requirement in this case, where the state statute was challenged as being in violation of federal statute and the Constitution. Reading the federal statute enacted by Congress in search of a plain statement, the Court found that the ADEA nowhere made it clear that state judges were protected by it. Therefore, Missouri's mandatory retirement provision for its state judges did not violate the ADEA. Neither did it violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it rationally furthered a legitimate state interest to uphold the public demand for fully functioning judiciaries. As a final outcome, this decision established that a state's right to define the qualifications of its highest state officials could not be overridden by the ADEA's prohibition of age discrimination. Nor would a state violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause as long as its requirements reasonably served a legitimate state interest.