Warning
Info
- - tl;dr
- - ICRA
- - Facts & Holding
- - DeepDive
0 0
Supreme Court of the United States - 501 U.S. 452
DeepDiveHighlight a legal term to see the definition
The case involves Missouri state judges challenging the constitutionality of the mandatory retirement provision at age seventy, claiming it violates the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the federal constitutional prescription of equal protection of the laws. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision, recognizing the principle of dual sovereignty between the States and the Federal Government. The case involves whether state judges are covered by the ADEA and the "political function" exception to the Equal Protection Clause. The ADEA will not be interpreted to cover state judges unless it is clear that Congress intended to include them. The case highlights the importance of clear and precise language in statutes to avoid ambiguity and ensure the proper balance of power between the Federal Government and the individual States.
The legal case concerns whether Missouri's mandatory retirement provision for state judges violates the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The majority opinion holds that state judges are not covered by the ADEA unless explicitly included by Congress. However, Justice White disagrees, arguing that the ADEA's definition of "employer" includes states and that state law is pre-empted by federal law in cases of conflict. The Supreme Court ultimately held that the majority's decision was a misinterpretation of the ADEA, which protects all individuals employed by any employer unless expressly excluded. The Court also found fault with the majority's treatment of Congress' power under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment and their plain statement rule, which contradicts previous decisions and lacks clarity.
The case involved the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 and appointed Missouri state judges. Justice Blackmun disagreed with the determination that appointed state judges fall within the narrow exclusion from ADEA coverage for "appointees on the policymaking level." The Court concluded that appointed judges are not "appointees on the policymaking level" under 29 U.S.C. § 630(f) as they are not accountable to the official who appoints them and are precluded from working closely with that official once appointed. The Court argues that the purpose of the policymaking exclusion was to exempt from coverage those who are in a close personal and immediate relationship with the elected official and are his first line of advisers, not to exclude judges or those on the policymaking level.
LSD+ Case Briefs
Features
- DeepDive for detailed case analysis
- Over 50,000 existing case briefs
- Instant briefs for another 6,000,000 cases
- Highlight dictionary for legal term definitions
- Social learning with chat and high points
Over 50,000 Cases Briefed
LSD+ gives you access to over 50,000 case briefs, more than anyone else. Be the first to email us the website of a case brief product that offers you more case briefs and we'll give you a free year of LSD+.
14-Day Free Trial
Unlimited access. Read as much content as you want during your trial with no device limitations. Cancel any time during your trial and keep access for the full 14 days.
Integrated Legal Dictionary
Lawyers and judges love to use big words. And Latin, for some reason.
Highlight a legal term in LSD Briefs and get an instant, plain English definition. Try highlighting contract or specific performance. No need to search or read through a list of definitions, simply highlight the words you don’t know and our LSDefine integration will instantly give you a definition to any of over 30,000 legal terms.
DeepDive
DeepDive allows you to explore legal cases like never before. DeepDive offers multiple levels of case summaries, which empowers you to quickly and easily find the information you need to stay on top of readings. Easily navigate through summary levels and click on any text to get more detail, all the way down to the original legal case text.
Brief anything. Instantly.
Our proprietary state-of-the-art system can instantly brief over 6,000,000 US cases. That means we can probably brief that case that your professor assigned last night when she sent you a poorly scanned pdf and told you to read every third paragraph. Or maybe she uploaded it to Canvas and didn’t really tell you to read it, but you know you probably should. Tenure does wild things to good people.
Social Learning with Chat and High Points
Study groups are a great way to learn and explore a case. LSD has chat rooms for each case to let you ask questions across the community and hear what other students struggled with and how they put it all together. Learn the key points of every case from other LSD+ users and share your knowledge with LSD High Points.
Real-Time Brief Feedback
Don’t settle for mistakes in briefs that have been there for 10 years and never fixed. Find an issue or something missing from a brief? Down vote and we will make improvements. All of our case brief editors graduated from from T14 law schools.