Opinion Editor’s Note: Star Tribune Opinion published Letters of readers online and in print every day. To contribute, click Here.
Critics of President Joe Biden’s proposal to impose term limits on U.S. Supreme Court justices argue that doing so would somehow weaken judicial independence (“Term Limits Calls Attack the Foundations of Our Federal Republic,” Opinion Exchange, August 5). How exactly this would happen is not specified, and for good reason. We have considerable experience with judicial term limits in the United States, and no evidence that they have any impact on judicial independence. More than 30 states have term limits on their appellate courts in the form of a mandatory retirement age. The majority of these states, including Minnesota, have set the age at 70; some as late as 72, 73, or 75. Minnesota has had a mandatory retirement age since at least 1973, and dozens of Minnesota Supreme Court justices, including myself, have retired at or before age 70. Current U.S. Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito would be unable to serve as Minnesota judges at ages 76 and 74, respectively, and 69-year-old Chief Justice John Roberts would only be allowed to serve until he is 69.
The mandatory retirement age provides an objective basis for the transition to a new, younger judge and does not pose a threat to the independence of serving or retiring judges.
The author is a former justice of the Supreme Court of Minnesota.
