Diamond v. Cuomo, 70 N.Y.2d 331 (1987)

A state’s mandatory retirement age for judges, though creating some distinctions between elected and appointed judges due to federal law, does not violate equal protection because it is rationally related to a legitimate state interest.

Summary

This case addresses whether New York’s constitutional and statutory provisions requiring judges to retire at age 70 violate the due process and equal protection rights of elected judges, especially in light of federal age discrimination laws that exempt elected officials. The Court of Appeals held that the state’s policy is rationally related to a legitimate state interest in maintaining a competent judiciary and that anomalies arising from the interplay of state and federal laws do not render the state policy unconstitutional. The court emphasized that the remedy for perceived inequities lies in the legislative or electoral processes, not judicial intervention.

Facts

Various New York State Judges initiated an action challenging the constitutionality of Article VI, § 25(b) of the New York State Constitution and Section 23 of the Judiciary Law, both of which mandate the retirement of judges at age 70. The plaintiffs argued that these provisions violated their rights to due process and equal protection, particularly in light of amendments to the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), which generally prohibits age discrimination but exempts elected officials. The Administrative Board had interpreted the ADEA to mean that appointed judges could serve until the end of their terms regardless of age, while elected judges were still subject to mandatory retirement at 70.

Procedural History

The case reached the New York Court of Appeals after proceedings in lower courts. The Appellate Division ruled in favor of the state, upholding the mandatory retirement age. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order, dismissing a cross-appeal as academic.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the mandatory retirement age for judges, as applied to elected judges in light of the ADEA’s exemption for elected officials, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

2. Whether certificated Supreme Court Justices’ constitutional rights were violated because they were classified as elected, not appointed, officials and thus subject to mandatory retirement.

Holding

1. No, because the classification created by the state’s mandatory retirement age, when considered in conjunction with the federal ADEA, is rationally related to a legitimate state interest.

2. No, because the Administrative Board’s interpretation of the law was correct, and there was no abridgment of the Justices’ constitutional rights.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision, holding that the mandatory retirement age for judges does not violate equal protection. The court reasoned that age is not a suspect class, so the rational basis test applies. The court reiterated its prior holding in Maresca v. Cuomo, which established the rationality of New York’s system for choosing and retiring judges. The court emphasized that the state’s policy of mandatory retirement at age 70 serves legitimate interests, such as ensuring a competent judiciary. The court acknowledged that the ADEA’s exemption for elected officials creates some anomalies but stated that these do not invalidate the state policy. The court stated, “That the State policy requiring retirement of Judges is partially frustrated because the Federal statute preempts it with respect to appointed Judges does not render the policy irrational and the State is free to pursue that policy to the extent doing so is consistent with Federal law.” Regarding the certificated Supreme Court Justices, the court deferred to the Administrative Board’s interpretation that these justices are elected officials and, therefore, subject to the ADEA exemption. The court concluded that any needed changes to these provisions should come from the legislature or the ballot box, not the courts, citing Noble State Bank v. Haskell: “for the repeal of such provisions, appeal lies to the ballot and to the legislative processes of democratic government, not to the courts”.