Exploring Term Limits for U.S. Supreme Court Justices: A Look at State Practices
Discussions around implementing term limits for U.S. Supreme Court justices often cite a significant public consensus. Over two-thirds of Americans favor a fixed-term approach over lifetime appointments, according to recent surveys. The U.S. Supreme Court’s current system stands in contrast to the practices observed at the state level.
State supreme courts, similar to the federal Supreme Court, interpret statutory and constitutional laws and oversee judicial proceedings. However, unlike the nine justices of the U.S. Supreme Court who enjoy lifetime tenure, 339 out of 344 state supreme court justices operate under term limits or mandatory retirement ages. This represents a vast majority—99 percent—across 49 states, with Rhode Island being the only outlier where justices have lifetime appointments. State justices typically serve for an average of 13 years, much shorter than the federal justices’ average of 26 years.
State-Level Judicial Term Structures
The concept of limited terms for judges is deeply rooted in U.S. history, dating back to the time of the Federalist Papers in the 1780s when New York, for example, had a mandatory judicial retirement age of 60. Presently, 47 states have defined term limits for their supreme court justices ranging from six to fourteen years. After completing their term, these justices may seek reselection through various processes, including elections or reappointments. The most prevalent term lengths are six, eight, and ten years, with an average of eight years.
Only Rhode Island, along with Massachusetts and New Hampshire, permits justices to serve indefinitely. However, Massachusetts and New Hampshire enforce a retirement age of 70 for their justices. Similarly, New Jersey allows indefinite terms but only after justices are reappointed following an initial seven-year term. In total, 31 states have imposed mandatory retirement ages for their justices, commonly set at 70.
Age Limits and Retirement Trends
Among states with age restrictions, the retirement age of 70 is most frequently observed. Notably, current U.S. Supreme Court Justices Alito, Sotomayor, and Thomas are over this age. Historically, only two federal justices have retired before 70 since 1970, while others have left the bench between the ages of 75 and 90, with an average retirement age of 82 for those who remained past 70.
In states without age limits, 17 of the 18 states impose fixed terms with reselection requirements. Although Rhode Island maintains life tenure for its justices, the state constitution does not prevent the imposition of a retirement age in the future. Attempts to raise mandatory retirement ages for judges through ballot measures have largely been rejected by voters in several states, reflecting a widespread sentiment against prolonged public power.
Comparing Tenures: Federal vs. State
The average tenure of U.S. Supreme Court justices has markedly increased from about 15 years prior to 1970 to approximately 26 years today. Some current justices, appointed around the age of 50, might serve for up to 35 years, equating to nearly nine presidential terms. Conversely, state justices have an average tenure of 13 years due to term limits and age restrictions.
Selection methods for justices vary widely by state, yet the average tenure for state justices who retired over the past 50 years has remained consistent. For instance, Oklahoma’s average term length stands at 22 years, which is still below the federal average. In 36 states, the average term ranges from 11 to 14 years, with 13 years being the most typical.
Massachusetts and New Hampshire exhibit systems akin to federal appointments, with justices selected by the governor upon approval by an executive council. Despite such appointments, the mandatory retirement age ensures an average service length of 14 years.
While varied, state-imposed limitations on judicial tenure reflect a long-standing principle in American governance: the importance of preventing any single individual from wielding excessive public power for an extended period. As such, the U.S. Supreme Court’s indefinite tenure policy remains uncommon compared to state practices and calls for reconsideration.
