Lexplug logoLexplug

Gregory v. Ashcroft

Supreme Court of the United States
501 U.S. 452 (1991)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

If Congress intends to alter the usual constitutional balance between the States and the Federal Government, such as by regulating a state's qualifications for its core government officials, it must make its intention unmistakably clear in the language of the statute. State age classifications for government officials are permissible under the Equal Protection Clause if they are rationally related to a legitimate state interest.


Facts:

  • Article V, § 26 of the Missouri Constitution mandates that all state judges, other than municipal judges, must retire at the age of seventy.
  • Judge Ellis Gregory, Jr., and Judge Anthony P. Nugent, Jr., were appointed state judges in Missouri by the Governor.
  • Following their initial appointments, both judges were retained in office through subsequent unopposed retention elections where voters cast a 'yes or no' vote.
  • As appointed judges, both Gregory and Nugent were subject to the state's mandatory retirement provision upon reaching age seventy.
  • The judges faced forced retirement due to this state constitutional provision.

Procedural Posture:

  • Petitioners, two Missouri state judges, filed a lawsuit against the Governor of Missouri in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.
  • The judges sought to invalidate the state's mandatory retirement provision, alleging it violated the ADEA and the Equal Protection Clause.
  • The District Court granted the Governor's motion to dismiss, ruling that judges were exempt from the ADEA as 'policymakers' and that the law satisfied rational basis review.
  • The judges, as appellants, appealed the dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
  • The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's judgment.
  • The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) apply to appointed state court judges, thereby preempting Missouri's constitutional provision mandating retirement at age 70?


Opinions:

Majority - Justice O'Connor

No. The ADEA does not apply to appointed state court judges because Congress did not make its intention to cover such officials unmistakably clear. The authority to establish qualifications for state officials is a fundamental sovereign power of a state. For a federal law to interfere with this power and upset the federal-state balance, Congress must provide a 'plain statement' of its intent. The ADEA's definition of 'employee' excludes an 'appointee on the policymaking level.' This phrase is ambiguous as applied to judges. Because the statute does not plainly include state judges, the Court will not interpret it to cover them, thereby avoiding a potential constitutional issue regarding the scope of Congress's Commerce Clause power. Furthermore, the mandatory retirement provision does not violate the Equal Protection Clause because it passes the rational basis test; the state has a legitimate interest in maintaining a competent judiciary, and an age-based retirement rule is a rational means to achieve that end.


Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice White

No. The ADEA does not apply to appointed state court judges, not because of a 'plain statement' rule, but because they fall within the statute's express exception for an 'appointee on the policymaking level.' The majority's creation of a broad 'plain statement' rule is an unsound departure from precedent like Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, which holds that states' protection from federal power lies in the political process, not in judicially created rules of interpretation. The case should be resolved simply by interpreting the statute. Judges, who create and shape common law, clearly operate on a 'policymaking level' as defined in 29 U.S.C. § 630(f). Therefore, they are exempt from the ADEA's protections. The Equal Protection analysis is correct.


Dissenting - Justice Blackmun

Yes. The ADEA does apply to appointed state court judges because they do not fall within the narrow statutory exclusion for an 'appointee on the policymaking level.' The term 'policymaker' should be interpreted narrowly in the context of the surrounding exceptions for 'personal staff' and 'immediate advisers,' limiting it to officials who work closely with and are accountable to an elected official. Independent judges do not fit this description. The legislative history of the analogous provision in Title VII confirms it was meant to cover high-level executive branch officials like cabinet members, not judges. Furthermore, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency that administers the ADEA, interprets the law to cover judges, and its reasonable interpretation is entitled to deference.



Analysis:

This case is highly significant for establishing the 'plain statement rule,' a canon of statutory construction requiring Congress to legislate with unambiguous clarity when it intends for a federal law to intrude upon core areas of state sovereignty. This rule strengthens federalism by creating a high bar for federal interference with fundamental state functions, such as defining the qualifications of high-ranking government officials. The decision shifts the burden to Congress to be explicit, rather than leaving it to courts to infer intent from ambiguous statutory language. This principle has been influential in subsequent cases involving the intersection of federal statutes and state governmental authority.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Gregory v. Ashcroft (1991)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"