How old is too old for a judge to stay on the bench?
All Rhode Island judges currently serve for life, but the Senate Committee on Judiciary on Tuesday heard a bill that would impose a mandatory retirement age for most judges.
The bill sponsored by Sen. Sam Zurier, a Providence Democrat, would require all lower court judges and magistrates to retire by the age of 75. The committee held the legislation for further study — as is standard for most initial bill hearings.
'Rhode Island's system is inadequate,' Zurier told the committee. 'Lifetime appointments are not the best system.'
If passed, the legislation would take effect July 1, 2025, and only apply to new judicial appointments after that date. The justices on the Rhode Island Supreme Court would be exempt because any change to their status requires an amendment to the state's constitution.
'All of our lower court judges are creatures of statute,' Zurier told the committee.
Zurier wants to get Rhode Island's courts in line with most other states. A total of 33 states have a mandatory retirement age, according to data compiled by the National Center for State Courts. Most set the retirement age between 70 and 75.
'We're really a huge outlier,' Roger Williams University School of Law Professor Michael Yelnosky said in an interview.
That statement rings especially true for how Rhode Island ranks among its neighbors.
Connecticut, Massachusetts and New Hampshire all require their judges to retire at 70. Connecticut judges serve eight-year terms while judges in Massachusetts and New Hampshire are lifetime appointees.
New Hampshire had the chance to raise the judicial retirement age to 75 during the November 2024 election, but the ballot measure was shy one percentage point of being approved.
In Vermont, where judges serve six-year terms, the retirement age is set at 90. Maine has no retirement limit for its judges, who serve eight-year terms following their appointments.
'It could be that we're better than everyone else, but I think there's some good reasons why states do it the way they do,' Zurier told Rhode Island Current ahead of Tuesday's committee meeting.
One of those reasons, Yelnosky said, is that mandatory retirements invite less scrutiny over the performance of older judges — and whether they're overstaying their welcome. He pointed to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, who was still active on the bench at the time of her death at age 83 in 2020, despite calls from some Democrats to step down before the end of President Barack Obama's second term.
'If it's 75, everybody knows you walk away regardless of your ability to continue to do the job,' Yelnosky said.
Setting a mandatory retirement age allows state officials to better plan for the future, Yelnosky added.
'If you're a governor naming someone, you know how long they're going to be on the bench,' he said. 'If you're a judge named, you know what your career is going to look like on the bench.'
Zurier said an official retirement policy could also lead to a more diverse bench moving forward.
'It's easier to do that if you have more turnover in the Judiciary,' he said.
As of Feb. 25, Rhode Island's lower courts had four vacancies. There are 82 active magistrates and judges across the state's District, Family, Superior, Traffic Tribunal, and Workers' Compensation courts.
'I think we have a good judiciary — but I think this could be an improvement,' Zurier said in an interview. 'You want to have rotation in your judges so that they can be up on the changes that have occurred in society over time.'
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
11 minutes ago
Texas House once again fails to reach quorum amid Democrats' protest
Texas Democrats on Monday again defied Republican Gov. Greg Abbott and the state GOP and did not show for a vote on a Republican-proposed redistricting plan.
USA Today
11 minutes ago
- USA Today
President, mayor, police chief social worker. Trump is a man of many hats
Alongside his Washington, D.C. takeover of local law enforcement, President Trump also vows to clear away the homeless and pave the potholes. Donald Trump's expansive view of his powers is no longer limited to those traditionally exercised by a president. With his decision to take control of D.C. police and deploy national guardsmen and FBI agents on the city's streets − citing a spree of lawlessness that isn't supported by federal crime data − the president took charge of tasks typically in the domain of the mayor and the police chief. There was more. He also vowed to clear out the homeless from encampments (though short on details about where they would go, exactly) as well as pave the streets and fill the potholes. He is a hands-on leader, he boasted, even when it comes to White House decor and his plans to build a huge ballroom and install new marble floors. "I'm announcing a historic action to rescue our nation's capital from crime, bloodshed, bedlam and squalor and worse," he said at the beginning of a freewheeling news conference that stretched for more than an hour. "This is Liberation Day in D.C., and we're going to take our capital back." Why now? That wasn't entirely clear, especially at a time crime in Washington is on a significant slide. In January, The U.S. attorney's office announced that violent crime in Washington in 2024 was at a 30-year low, down 35% from 2023. So far this year, DC's Metropolitan Police Department said that as of Aug. 10, violent crime has dropped another 26%. Except for a spike during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2022 and 2023, violent crime in the District of Columbia has been steadily declining since 2012. Trump was clearly unconvinced, depicting a dystopian landscape outside the White House gates. "Our capital city has been overtaken by violent gangs and bloodthirsty criminals, roving mobs of wild youth, drugged out maniacs and homeless people," he said. He mentioned in particular the beating of a former staffer from the Department on Governmental Efficiency during an attempted carjacking. He suggested the reporters in the room, many of whom live in Washington, should be grateful that he was moving to protect them. Can Trump do that? Yes. Should he? Trump declared a public safety emergency in Washington − seizing control of the police department and sending 800 national guardsmen on the streets and another 120 FBI agents on night patrols. While critics argued that it wasn't necessary or wise to take these steps, they generally didn't argue that he lacked the power to do them. "He's doing this because he can," city councilman Charles Allen said. To be clear, standing on the side of law-and-order doesn't usually require a profile in courage. It has been a Republican trope since Richard Nixon and before. In recent years, it has been stoked by demands by Democrats and others for social-justice reforms in the wake of notorious cases of police brutality. Trump depicted crime as a failure of Democratic leaders and a consequence of their policies. He warned other Democratic enclaves − New York, Chicago, Los Angeles − that he just might consider taking similar steps to impose order on their streets. What particularly irked his fiercest critics was the contrast with Trump's action, or his lack of it, during what was undeniably a law-enforcement crisis in Washington on Jan. 6, 2021. Thousands of his supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol, disrupting the ceremonial count of Electoral College ballots in an election he had lost and sending senators and representatives scrambling for safety. Then, Trump didn't deploy the National Guard. Afterwards, more than 1,575 people were charged with crimes. At least 600 were charged with the felony of assaulting or impeding law enforcement. Trump himself was also indicted on criminal charges for trying to overturn the results of the 2020 election that he lost – a prosecution he managed to avoid facing trial on by winning the presidency again. On the first day of his second term, Trump granted a blanket clemency to the Jan. 6 defendants. Durban: 'Political theater' to draw attention from Jeffrey Epstein This time, Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin called Trump's actions "political theater" and "a typical move by this president to create chaos and uncertainty, and to draw the attention from other issues like Jeffrey Epstein." Trump was "trying to change the subject," said Durbin, one of the top Democrats who oversees the Justice Department. Trump did answer questions from reporters about the traditional business of the presidency. He discussed his vision of a "land swap" he might negotiate with Russian President Vladimir Putin during their scheduled meeting on Aug. 15 in Alaska to end the war in Ukraine. He said he would soon decide whether to reclassify marijuana as a less dangerous drug, and he teased the ongoing trade negotiations with China. Then, yes, there was Epstein, whose case had broken back into the headlines just before Trump walked out into the White House briefing room. A federal judge denied the Trump administration's request to release testimony in the grand jury that indicted Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein's former partner who is serving her own 20-year prison sentence on sex trafficking charges. The request was part of the tamp down swirling controversy among Trump's MAGA base about whether powerful people were being protected from disclosure. As he left the briefing room, the president ignored shouted questions about the case − though like the new crackdown on crime, that topic isn't likely to go away anytime soon.
The Hill
11 minutes ago
- The Hill
Democrats see weaponization blitz in moves from DOJ, intelligence leaders
Lawmakers and advocates are sounding the alarm over a series of actions taken by the Justice Department and intelligence community that they argue are both abuses of power and threats to the traditional independence held by both organizations. The FBI agreed to aid the Texas government last week in tracking down Democratic members of the state's legislature who fled in an effort to block a controversial redistricting plan. The commitment came as it fired a series of agents, including those who had worked on controversial matters related to President Trump, prompting complaints agents were facing retribution simply for taking on assigned cases. Meanwhile, the Justice Department subpoenaed New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) for documents related to court victories against the Trump Organization and the National Rifle Association. The same day, DOJ also tapped Ed Martin to investigate James as well as Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) on allegations of mortgage fraud. DOJ on Monday also launched a grand jury investigation into Obama-era officials they've accused of engaging in a 'treasonous conspiracy' in investigating Russia's efforts to influence the 2016 election. Intelligence community leaders have since come under fire for releasing a number of documents related to the claim. Democrats say the documents expose sources and methods of intelligence gathering. James, through an attorney, said she was targeted as part of 'the president's political retribution campaign.' 'Weaponizing the Department of Justice to try to punish an elected official for doing her job is an attack on the rule of law and a dangerous escalation by this administration. If prosecutors carry out this improper tactic and are genuinely interested in the truth, we are ready and waiting with the facts and the law,' her attorney Abbe Lowell said in a statement. The other moves are likewise coming under scrutiny. Democrats sent a letter to FBI Director Kash Patel and Attorney General Pam Bondi asking for the legal basis under which the bureau could be involved in tracking down the Texas lawmakers. 'These reports suggest that the FBI is diverting federal law enforcement away from fighting terrorism, drug trafficking, and other federal crimes to instead harass and target Texans' duly elected representatives, and thus raise urgent questions about the legal basis, scale, and appropriateness of federal law enforcement involvement in a state-level political matter,' Reps. Robert Garcia (Calif.) and Jamie Raskin (Md.), the top Democrats on the House Oversight and Judiciary committees, wrote in a letter also signed by Texas Democrats Reps. Greg Casar and Jasmine Crockett. The group pointed to a 2003 ruling from a state judge that reviewed another incident in which state lawmakers sought to prevent a legislative quorum, determining that the Texas Department of Public Safety was limited in pursuing residents in cases where there was no crime. 'The ruling made clear that the state cannot treat quorum-breaking as a criminal offense subject to law enforcement pursuit,' they wrote. The firing of numerous agents also sparked claims the bureau's leadership was abusing its power and running afoul of civil servant protections in dismissing several career agents. Brian Driscoll previously served as acting FBI director before Patel was confirmed, and during his brief tenure rebuffed an early request from the Trump administration to turn over the names of all agents who worked on the cases of Jan. 6 rioters – a group that includes thousands of people. Also fired was Scott Jensen, who Patel had recently promoted to director of the Washington, D.C. Field Office, and Walter Giardina, an agent who worked for special counsel Robert Mueller and aided in the prosecution of Peter Navarro. In a final note to staff, Driscoll said he was given no reason for his dismissal. The FBI Agent's Association criticized the firing as unlawful. 'The FBI Agents Association strongly condemns today's unlawful firing of FBI Special Agents. These Agents were carrying out the assignments given to them and did their jobs professionally and with integrity,' the group said in a Friday statement. 'This action sets a dangerous precedent. It increases our vulnerability to criminal and national security threats at home and abroad. It prioritizes division over unity, stokes anger instead of solidarity within our ranks, and threatens to chill the work of agents rather than support it.' The move was also blasted by Raskin and Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee. 'These are individuals [who] have dedicated their careers to protecting the American people, and their firings are part of a disturbing pattern of retaliation and politicization at an institution charged with safeguarding national security and the rule of law,' Warner said in a statement. The FBI and DOJ declined to comment on the firings, their involvement in Texas, the launch of the grand jury, or its probe into James. But the Trump administration has broadly defended such moves, consistently arguing the FBI and the Justice Department were political tools of previous administrations while arguing their own actions help confront those abuses. 'President Trump is restoring integrity to the Department of Justice after four years of weaponization, hoaxes, and attempts to imprison him. The DOJ is upholding Lady Justice and working to execute President Trump's Make America Safe Again agenda, which is lowering crime, holding criminals accountable, and empowering our law enforcement community,' White House spokesman Harrison Fields said in a statement to The Hill. Trump has at various turns denied asking for Justice Department interventions, though he has not hid his approval of the actions. 'Pam is doing a great job,' Trump said on CNBC when asked about the grand jury investigation into Obama officials. 'I have nothing to do with it. I will tell you this, they deserve it. I was happy to hear it.' The mortgage investigation from Martin is one of the first public actions taken by the Justice Department's new Weaponization Working Group, a role he was given after senators signaled their opposition to him for a U.S. Attorney role. Schiff, through an attorney, said Martin has a conflict of interest in the matter as the lawmaker previously placed a hold on his nomination, in part due to Martin's vocal defense of Jan. 6 rioters. 'The allegations against Senator Schiff are transparently false, stale, and long debunked. Now Ed Martin, the most brazenly partisan and politically compromised person possible for the task, has been picked to investigate a political adversary. The bias here is glaring,' said Preet Bharara, a former U.S. Attorney fired by Trump who is now representing Schiff. 'Mr. Martin is a January 6-defending lawyer who has repeatedly pursued baseless and politically-motivated investigations to fulfill demands to investigate and prosecute perceived enemies. Any supposed investigation led by him would be the very definition of weaponization of the justice process.' Also sparking pushback is the decision to open a grand jury inquiry into referrals made by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA Director John Ratcliffe. A memo released by Gabbard last month accuses Obama-era officials of a 'treasonous conspiracy' she said was designed to undermine Trump. The documents she released, however, largely show officials discussing something that was never in dispute – that Russia was never able to alter vote totals. She later released a report from House Intelligence Committee Republicans casting doubt on whether Russian President Vladimir Putin aimed to help Trump win the election rather than just sow chaos in the U.S. election. Most other reviews, however, determined Russia wanted to help Trump win. The Justice Department later released a previously classified annex to special counsel John Durham's report on the 2016 election. Rep. Jim Himes (Conn.), the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said both the Durham annex and the Republican report were both 'considered so sensitive and revealing of sources and methods that, until last month, [the committee] was not even permitted to retain a copy of either document within a classified safe in our own secure facility.' 'The highly irregular declassification process you engaged in could imperil critical intelligence sources and methods—a destructive action taken in order to advance a patently false political narrative,' he wrote, adding that they failed to consider 'how foreign adversaries might use the information exposed.' 'When done in a cavalier manner for partisan ends, declassification can literally endanger lives and enable adversaries to discover and disrupt the means through which we collect intelligence.' Former CIA Director John Brennan and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, two of the officials involved in the claims, have called the accusations 'patently false' and rejected claims they attempted to smear Trump. 'Every serious review has substantiated the intelligence community's fundamental conclusion that the Russians conducted an influence campaign intended to help Mr. Trump win the 2016 election,' the two wrote. 'Contrary to the Trump administration's wild and baseless claims, there was no mention of 'collusion' between the Trump campaign and the Russians in the assessment,' they added. The intelligence community under Trump has defended the release of the documents, calling it a transparency measure. 'This effort reflects Director Ratcliffe's continued commitment to elevating the truth and bringing transparency to the American people,' the CIA said in a statement when Gabbard released the documents. Gabbard during a White House press conference also brushed off questions about the release. 'I think it's a disservice to the American people that former President Obama's office and others who are criticizing the transparency that is being delivered by releasing these documents,' Gabbard said. 'They are doing a disservice to the American people in trying to deflect away from their culpability in what is a historic scandal.'
