New York’s requirement that state judges retire by the age of 70 remains intact after the state’s top court ruled Thursday the longstanding constitutional mandate doesn’t clash with a more recent amendment banning age discrimination.
The Court of Appeals rejected arguments from three judges above the age of 70 who argued the mandatory retirement age was superseded by the state’s ban on age bias that was added to the state constitution through the landmark 2024 Equal Rights Amendment.
“The text, purpose, and history of these constitutional provisions establish that they operate independently,” four judges wrote in their per curiam opinion. Chief Judge Rowan Wilson and Judge Madeline Singas took no part.
The retirement mandate “addresses a different constitutional matter than the ERA, and the two provisions are not antagonistic and may be harmonized,” the opinion says, siding with appellate and trial court orders dismissing the case.
Judge Shirley Troutman wrote a separate concurring opinion “to address gaps in the majority’s reasoning.” She said the majority “does the ERA disservice” by not addressing whether the constitutional provision is self-executing and allows New Yorkers to seek redress for discrimination. Amicus briefs filed by four organizations, including the New York Civil Liberties Union and the Legal Aid Society, urged the court to make clear it is.
The suing judges are the now-retired Robert J. Miller, Richard J. Montelione, and Orlando Marrazzo Jr. They argued the ERA effectively repealed the retirement mandate when it passed, amending the constitution’s civil rights clause to ban discrimination based on age, sexual orientation, gender identity, and pregnancy and related issues.
Aidala Bertuna & Kamins PC and Morrison Cohen LLP represent the judicial plaintiffs.
The case is In the Matter of Miller v. State of New York, N.Y., No. APL-2026-00033, opinion 6/18/26.