Driscoll v. Corbett
620 Pa. 494
| Pa. | 2013Background
- 1967-68 Pennsylvania constitutional convention rewrote Article V and adopted Section 16(b) mandating retirements at age 70.
- 2001 amendment changed retirement to December 31 of the year the jurist turns 70; senior judges may serve per diem post-retirement.
- Gondelman v. Commonwealth (1989) upheld the constitutionality of Section 16(b) against federal/state challenges; Gregory v. Ashcroft cited as approving Missouri-era rationale.
- Judges challenged the retirement mandate in two Commonwealth Court actions and sought this Court’s plenary review under 42 Pa.C.S. § 726.
- Petitioners argued Article I inherent rights and equal/due process claims; Commonwealth urged deference to the Constitution as enacted by the people and relied on rational-basis review.
- This Court applied rule of necessity, afforded deference to the people’s constitutional amendment, and held the challenges fail.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Article V, Section 16(b) violates Article I rights | Petitioners argue inherent rights predate and constrain amendments; Gondelman should be overruled. | Gondelman controls; amendments are valid and not unconstitutional under Article I. | Amendment upheld; no Article I violation. |
| Whether the age-based retirement trigger violates equal protection | Age 70 is a sensitive classification requiring heightened scrutiny; changes since 1968 undermine rational basis. | Rational-basis review applies; Gondelman controls; the provision rationally furthers system-wide goals. | Rational-basis review satisfied; no equal-protection violation. |
| Whether the retirement provision violates substantive due process | There is a property-like right to hold office beyond 70; due process requires closer scrutiny. | No property interest beyond constitutional retirement; term ends at retirement. | No due-process violation; rational-basis review suffices. |
| Whether the analysis for constitutional amendments requires fresh scrutiny | Fresh Pennsylvania-specific scrutiny should apply to amendments; inherent-rights claim. | Deferential, rational-basis review applied; Gondelman controlling; amendments vetted by people’s sovereignty. | Rational-basis review applied; no departure from Gondelman. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gondelman v. Commonwealth, 520 Pa. 451 (1989) (upheld Article V, §16(b) rational basis; legitimacy of convention-era reform)
- Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452 (1991) (reaffirms rational-basis justification for state-age-based retirement)
- Firing v. Kephart, 466 Pa. 560 (1976) (term expiring upon retirement; supports no post-retirement entitlement)
- Nixon v. Commonwealth, 576 Pa. 385 (2003) (right to pursue occupation; rational basis applies to non-fundamental rights)
- Adler v. State Bd. of Auctioneers Exam’rs, 577 Pa. 166 (2004) (clarifies that pursuit of a profession is not itself a fundamental right)
- Stander v. Kelley, 433 Pa. 406 (1969) (constitutional rights cannot be infringed by majority vote)
- Barnette (cited through U.S. cases), 319 U.S. 624 (1943) (free speech and non-subject-to-majority-rule protection of fundamental rights)