Lifetime Judicial Appointment: A Constitutional Mandate?

The lifetime appointment of federal judges in the United States is a contentious issue. While the Constitution does not expressly grant life tenure to federal judges, the interpretation of Article III, Section One suggests that federal judges shall hold their offices during good behaviour, implying that they can only be removed from office through impeachment and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. This has resulted in concerns about the judiciary's impartiality, with critics arguing that lifetime appointments may lead to cognitive aging, a lack of diversity on the bench, and judges staying in their positions longer than they should. On the other hand, proponents of lifetime appointments argue that it preserves judicial independence and protects judges from political influence.

Explore related products

Picking Federal Judges: Lower Court Selection from Roosevelt Through Reagan

$55

To provide for the appointment of additional Federal circuit and district judges, and for other purposes.

$14.75

The First Fifteen: How Asian American Women Became Federal Judges

$26.46 $34.95

Leadership on the Federal Bench: The Craft and Activism of Jack Weinstein

$91.69 $185

Justice on the Frontlines: Michael S. Nachmanoff Jurisprudence Story : How a Federal Judge Shapes National Security, Criminal Reform, and the Future of American Law in Turbulent Times

$6.99

The Rehnquist Choice: The Untold Story of the Nixon Appointment That Redefined the Supreme Court

$15.99 $21.99

The Constitution does not expressly grant life tenure

The lack of explicit mention of life tenure in the Constitution has led to proposals for reform, such as introducing term limits for Supreme Court justices. Advocates of term limits suggest an eighteen-year term with a new justice appointed every two years. This reform would enhance the Court's alignment with public values and reduce the political tension associated with lifetime appointments. It would also ensure continuity during unexpected vacancies and prevent any single justice from holding extensive power over decades.

Additionally, critics of lifetime appointments argue that it causes judges to stay in their positions longer than they should, leading to concerns about cognitive aging and impartiality. The advanced age of some judges has raised questions about their ability to perform judicial duties effectively and stay impartial in an evolving society.

Furthermore, lifetime appointments have been criticised for potentially influencing judges to impose political biases and align with ideological camps, which could result in the judiciary losing public confidence in its impartiality. The perception of judges being beholden to their appointing authority has been cited as a concern, along with the risk of judges losing touch with the people they serve.

While the Constitution does not expressly mention life tenure, the interpretation of "holding offices during good behaviour" has resulted in the practical effect of lifetime appointments for federal judges, barring any impeachment or voluntary removal.

Judges can be impeached for treason, bribery, or other high crimes

The US Constitution does not expressly grant "life tenure" to federal judges. The idea of lifetime appointments has been derived from the language that judges and justices "shall hold their offices during good behaviour.". While lifetime appointments for federal judges are intended to preserve judicial independence, they also bring challenges that question the impartiality and effectiveness of the judiciary. For example, concerns have been raised that the judiciary is becoming an extension of the political battleground, with justices aligning with ideological camps, thus risking the loss of public confidence in its impartiality. Additionally, the cognitive aging of judges has become a growing concern, as judges in the modern era are serving much longer than in the past.

The US Constitution grants Congress the power to impeach federal officials, including federal judges, for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.". While the definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors" is not specified in the Constitution and has long been debated, it is clear that impeachment is meant to address abuses by government officials and safeguard the constitutional principle of separation of powers. The impeachment process involves the House of Representatives charging an official through a simple majority vote and then sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate for trial. The Senate sits as a High Court of Impeachment, considering evidence, hearing witnesses, and voting on the charges. If a federal judge is found guilty by a two-thirds majority, they are removed from office and may be barred from holding elected office again.

Impeachment investigations are not limited solely to "high crimes and misdemeanors." Merely "private" offenses like tax evasion, perjury, sexual assault, and obstruction of justice have also been deemed worthy of investigation, as they call into question the ability of a judge to properly perform their duties and maintain the dignity and respect of their office. Additionally, some instances of non-criminal misbehavior by high government officials might be regarded as too intolerable to allow them to continue in their public responsibilities.

Throughout US history, the House has initiated impeachment proceedings over 60 times, but there have only been 21 impeachments, including three presidents, one cabinet secretary, one senator, and fifteen judges. Of those impeached, only eight officials, all federal judges, were found guilty and removed from office.

Lifetime appointments may cause judges to stay longer than they should

The Constitution does not expressly grant "life tenure" to Supreme Court justices. The idea of lifetime appointments for federal judges is derived from the language that judges and justices "shall hold their offices during good behaviour". This has been interpreted to mean that federal judges have lifetime tenure and will remain in office until they die or voluntarily step down, unless impeached by the House of Representatives and convicted by the Senate of "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors".

However, critics argue that lifetime appointments may cause judges to stay in their positions longer than they should, especially after they have become too old or unable to perform their duties effectively due to cognitive aging. In the past, the average retirement age for federal judges was around 70, but in recent years, many judges have continued serving well into their 80s. While more research is needed to understand the impact of aging on judicial performance, critics suggest that it may affect a judge's ability to stay impartial and up-to-date with modern times.

Additionally, lifetime appointments can create a perception of judges being beholden to their appointing authority, potentially allowing them to impose political biases. This perception is further exacerbated by the current process of appointing judges, which has become increasingly partisan, leading to concerns about the judiciary's independence and impartiality.

To address these concerns, some have proposed introducing term limits for Supreme Court justices, such as an eighteen-year term with a new justice appointed every two years. This would not only enhance the Court's alignment with public values but also reduce the political tension associated with each nomination. Furthermore, regularized appointments would ensure continuity during unexpected vacancies and prevent any single justice from accumulating excessive power over extended periods.

While lifetime appointments are intended to safeguard judicial independence, the challenges they pose regarding impartiality, effectiveness, and accountability cannot be ignored. As such, alternatives such as fixed-term appointments with no chance of reappointment or longer terms subject to renewal have been suggested to strike a balance between independence and accountability.

Explore related products

Role of Home State Senators in the Selection of Lower Federal Court Judges

$0.99 $18.99

Scoring Points: Politicians, Activists, and the Lower Federal Court Appointment Process

$130

Federal Judges Revealed

$46.19 $94

Who is Bill McGinley?: The Life, Legal Career, the story behind his appointment and Influence of Trump’s White House Counsel.

$6.99 $12.99

The Life and Times of Judge Roy Bean by Paul Newman

$25.99

The Life and Times of Judge Roy Bean by Warner Archive

$27.99

Lifetime appointments can lead to a loss of public confidence

The lifetime appointment of federal judges is a highly debated topic. While some argue that it ensures stability and experience in the judiciary, others highlight the potential downsides, particularly the risk of losing public confidence.

One of the primary concerns with lifetime appointments is the lack of accountability that comes with it. Once appointed, federal judges have lifetime tenure and cannot be removed unless they commit an impeachable offense. This lack of accountability can lead to a disconnect between judicial decisions and evolving societal values and norms. Judges with lifetime appointments may make decisions that do not reflect the current sentiment or needs of the society they serve, potentially resulting in a loss of public confidence in the judiciary's impartiality and effectiveness.

Additionally, lifetime appointments can hinder the judiciary's ability to adapt to changing societal norms and values. As society progresses, there is a risk that a judge's views may become outdated, and lifetime appointments can keep these outdated perspectives in power for extended periods. This could further widen the gap between the judiciary and the public, leading to a loss of confidence in the system's responsiveness and sensitivity to societal changes.

The potential for cognitive aging among judges with lifetime appointments is another factor that can impact public confidence. In modern times, many judges have extended their service well into their 80s, raising concerns about the effects of aging on judicial performance. While more research is needed in this area, scholars suggest that cognitive aging may influence a judge's ability to stay aligned with current societal perspectives and expectations.

Furthermore, lifetime appointments can slow the pace of increasing diversity in the judiciary. Term limits, on the other hand, could provide more frequent opportunities to appoint judges from diverse backgrounds, ensuring that the judiciary better represents the society it serves. A more diverse judiciary is more likely to gain and retain the trust and confidence of the public.

While the intention behind lifetime appointments is to preserve judicial independence, the challenges it poses, such as reduced accountability, potential for outdated views, and lack of diversity, can collectively contribute to a loss of public confidence in the judiciary's ability to administer fair and impartial justice.

Alternatives to lifetime appointments include term limits or periodic reviews

Federal judges, including Supreme Court justices, are appointed for life under Article III of the US Constitution. This means they "hold their offices during good behaviour", providing a form of judicial independence that has long been regarded as a safeguard for democracy. However, the interpretation that the language implies life tenure is not a new perspective, and critics have questioned whether life tenure truly enhances judicial independence.

Alternatives to lifetime appointments

The majority of judges polled oppose lifetime appointments, reflecting concerns about a lack of accountability and the risk of losing touch with the people they serve. Some judges have suggested longer, renewable terms as an alternative, such as an initial appointment for a specific period (e.g. 10 years) with the option of reappointment. This could provide a balance between experience and independence, while addressing the concerns associated with lifetime appointments.

Term limits

One of the most popular reform proposals is the introduction of term limits for Supreme Court justices. Advocates suggest an eighteen-year term limit, with a new justice appointed every two years. This could enhance the Court's alignment with public values and reduce political tension in the confirmation process. It would also ensure continuity during unexpected vacancies and prevent any single justice from wielding power for decades.

However, opponents argue that term limits would be unconstitutional, infringing on the constitutional provision allowing justices to serve "in good behaviour". They also suggest that staggered term limits could give an opposing party incentive to block justice confirmations, and that two-term presidents or consecutive terms by a single party could quickly gain ideological control of the Court.

Periodic reviews

Another alternative suggested by judges is to retain lifetime appointments but introduce periodic performance reviews to assess whether a judge should remain on the bench. This could address concerns about cognitive aging and ensure judges remain fit to serve, without removing the independence provided by lifetime tenure.

Frequently asked questions