New York's Judicial Retirement Age of 70 Upheld by Court

Judges' challenge to mandatory retirement age fails as appeals court rules Equal Rights Amendment did not repeal the law.

Mar. 13, 2026 at 10:28pm

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

A New York appeals court has upheld the state's mandatory judicial retirement age of 70, rejecting a challenge from three state judges who argued the recently passed Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) had implicitly repealed the age cap. The court ruled the ERA's legislative history showed it was focused on protecting abortion rights, not changing judicial eligibility requirements.

Why it matters

The ruling preserves New York's longstanding policy of requiring judges to retire at age 70, a practice common in many states but not at the federal level where judges have lifetime appointments. The decision comes amid broader debates over the role of elderly judges and whether mandatory retirement ages should be reconsidered.

The details

The New York Supreme Court First Appellate Department upheld a lower court decision, saying the ERA 'contains no reference' to 'the eligibility of persons to serve as judges or justices, or the judicial retirement age.' The court said the ERA's drafters were focused on 'the changing national legal landscape endangering abortion rights' and had not viewed the measure as repealing the age cap. State lawmakers have considered making changes to the judicial retirement age since the ERA passed, the court noted.

  • The New York appeals court ruling was issued on March 12, 2026.
  • New York's constitution requires judges to retire at age 70 or get certified to stay on the bench through age 76.

The players

New York Supreme Court First Appellate Department

The New York state appeals court that upheld the state's mandatory judicial retirement age of 70.

Y. David Scharf

An attorney representing the plaintiff-judges who challenged the retirement age.

New York Attorney General's Office

The office that defended the age cap in court.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“The First Department's decision overlooked the transcendent importance of the Equal Rights Amendment.”

— Y. David Scharf, Attorney for plaintiff-judges

What’s next

The plaintiff-judges have said they plan to appeal the ruling to New York's highest court.

The takeaway

This case highlights the ongoing legal and political debates over mandatory retirement ages for judges, with the New York appeals court ruling that the state's 70-year-old cap was not repealed by the more recently passed Equal Rights Amendment.