Puerto Rico Supreme Court upholds mandatory judicial retirement age

Puerto Rico Supreme Court Associate Justice Luis Estrella Martínez (poderjudicial.pr)

By THE STAR STAFF

The Puerto Rico Supreme Court has refused to review a constitutional challenge filed by the Asociación Puertorriqueña de la Judicatura and several judges seeking to invalidate the mandatory retirement age of 70 for members of the judiciary.

In a resolution and concurrent opinion, the high court reaffirmed that the constitutional provision is valid and fully enforceable. The decision means that all judges must retire at 70 as established in the commonwealth Constitution. 

According to the opinion, “the constitutional provision on the mandatory retirement age for judges of Puerto Rico is valid and entirely operative.”

The case, identified as 2026 TSPR 62, involved a petition for certiorari submitted by the judicial association and Court of Appeals judges Eric R. Ronda del Toro and Felipe Rivera Colón. Justice Mildred Pabón Charneco recused herself, leaving the matter to a special panel composed of Chief Justice Maite Oronoz Rodríguez and Associate Justices Luis Estrella Martínez and Raúl Candelario López.

The petitioners sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the Office of the Court Administration from enforcing the retirement requirement once judges reach age 70. They also requested a declaratory judgment declaring Article V, Section 10 of the Puerto Rico Constitution unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Their arguments extended to federal law, asserting that the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management and Economic Stability Act (PROMESA), actions by the Financial Oversight and Management Board, and the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Commonwealth of Puerto Rico v. Sánchez Valle had effectively dismantled the judicial retirement system and rendered the mandatory age limit invalid.

Both the Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeals dismissed the case on the grounds that it presented a non-justiciable political question. The Supreme Court disagreed. In his concurring opinion, Justice Estrella wrote that he sought to “impart certainty to our constitutional order,” concluding that none of the criteria for the political question doctrine were present. He emphasized that the judiciary retains the authority to interpret the Constitution and that the matter was appropriate for judicial review.

Justice Estrella also examined whether the petitioners had standing, outlining the traditional requirements of demonstrating a clear and palpable injury, a real and immediate harm, a causal connection between the challenged action and the alleged injury, and a cause of action grounded in law or the Constitution. He concluded that the case did not fall within the political question doctrine because the Constitution grants the judiciary the authority to interpret its provisions, and ample judicial standards exist to evaluate the claims.

In addressing the merits, the opinion relied heavily on Gregory v. Ashcroft, a U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld Missouri’s mandatory retirement age for judges. The federal court found a rational connection between mandatory retirement and the state’s legitimate interest in ensuring judicial competence. Justice Estrella noted that the same reasoning applies in Puerto Rico. Although life expectancy has increased since the Constitution was adopted in 1952 and many individuals remain professionally active at age 70, the legitimate governmental interest lies in preventing the heightened risk of physical or cognitive decline.

The opinion also rejected the argument that PROMESA altered Puerto Rico’s constitutional framework for judicial retirement. Justice Estrella wrote that PROMESA focuses on fiscal oversight and does not modify the substantive organization of the judiciary. He further noted that although Puerto Rico remains subject to congressional authority, the mandatory retirement provision stems from powers delegated by Congress when Puerto Rico adopted its Constitution.

Justice Raúl Candelario López issued separate remarks noting that 31 states also impose judicial age limits. He acknowledged that conditions have changed significantly since 1952 and that many individuals at age 70 remain at the height of their professional productivity. However, he stressed that any change to the retirement age must come through legislative action and voter approval.

The decision may be subject to two motions for reconsideration. After that, the only remaining avenue is a petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, which accepts fewer than one percent of such petitions. Unlike Puerto Rico, the federal judiciary does not impose a mandatory retirement age.

Attorney Francisco J. Amundaray represented the petitioners, while Juan A. Marqués Díaz and Angélica Rivera Ramos appeared for the government.