Members of the Rhode Island judiciary are shown at Gov. Dan McKee’s State of the State address on Jan. 14, 2025. (Photo by Michael Salerno/Rhode Island Current)
All Rhode Island judges currently serve for life, but the Senate Committee on Judiciary on Tuesday heard a bill that would impose a mandatory retirement age for most judges.
The bill sponsored by Sen. Sam Zurier, a Providence Democrat, would require all lower court judges and magistrates to retire by the age of 75. The committee held the legislation for further study — as is standard for most initial bill hearings.
“Rhode Island’s system is inadequate,” Zurier told the committee. “Lifetime appointments are not the best system.”
If passed, the legislation would take effect July 1, 2025, and only apply to new judicial appointments after that date. The justices on the Rhode Island Supreme Court would be exempt because any change to their status requires an amendment to the state’s constitution.
“All of our lower court judges are creatures of statute,” Zurier told the committee.
Zurier wants to get Rhode Island’s courts in line with most other states. A total of 33 states have a mandatory retirement age, according to data compiled by the National Center for State Courts. Most set the retirement age between 70 and 75.
“We’re really a huge outlier,” Roger Williams University School of Law Professor Michael Yelnosky said in an interview.
That statement rings especially true for how Rhode Island ranks among its neighbors.
Connecticut, Massachusetts and New Hampshire all require their judges to retire at 70. Connecticut judges serve eight-year terms while judges in Massachusetts and New Hampshire are lifetime appointees.
New Hampshire had the chance to raise the judicial retirement age to 75 during the November 2024 election, but the ballot measure was shy one percentage point of being approved.
In Vermont, where judges serve six-year terms, the retirement age is set at 90. Maine has no retirement limit for its judges, who serve eight-year terms following their appointments.
“It could be that we’re better than everyone else, but I think there’s some good reasons why states do it the way they do,” Zurier told Rhode Island Current ahead of Tuesday’s committee meeting.
One of those reasons, Yelnosky said, is that mandatory retirements invite less scrutiny over the performance of older judges — and whether they’re overstaying their welcome. He pointed to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, who was still active on the bench at the time of her death at age 83 in 2020, despite calls from some Democrats to step down before the end of President Barack Obama’s second term.
“If it’s 75, everybody knows you walk away regardless of your ability to continue to do the job,” Yelnosky said.
Setting a mandatory retirement age allows state officials to better plan for the future, Yelnosky added.
“If you’re a governor naming someone, you know how long they’re going to be on the bench,” he said. “If you’re a judge named, you know what your career is going to look like on the bench.”
Zurier said an official retirement policy could also lead to a more diverse bench moving forward.
“It’s easier to do that if you have more turnover in the Judiciary,” he said.
As of Feb. 25, Rhode Island’s lower courts had four vacancies. There are 82 active magistrates and judges across the state’s District, Family, Superior, Traffic Tribunal, and Workers’ Compensation courts.
“I think we have a good judiciary — but I think this could be an improvement,” Zurier said in an interview. “You want to have rotation in your judges so that they can be up on the changes that have occurred in society over time.”
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.