Senior status is a special form of retirement for federal judges. When a judge takes senior status, they open a vacancy on their court, yet continue to hear and decide cases. Most active judges today eventually go senior. Yet many do not do so the very moment they become eligible. So why do judges take senior status when they do? The scholarly consensus emphasizes non-partisan reasons, such as rising caseloads or financial incentives. This Article, though, presents the first attempt to comprehensively analyze the timing behind every senior status decision since 1919. My dataset offers a startling rebuttal to the existing literature, showing that today—more than ever before—the decision to go senior is politically strategic, giving open seats to Presidents from the same political party. For much of history, going senior was not all that partisan. As recently as the Clinton Administration, more than half of the judges who took senior status had been appointed by a Republican President. But that has changed. Under George W. Bush, over seventy percent of federal judges seeking senior status were appointed by a Republican President. During the Trump Administration, this number increased to over eighty percent. By comparison, fifty-seven percent of judges going senior under Barack Obama were appointed by a Democrat, and sixty-five percent of judges going senior under Joseph Biden were appointed by a Democrat. As reflected in these percentages, politically strategic behavior is most pronounced when a Republican is in the White House; one side, it seems, is playing the game better than the other. I call this sort of politically strategic behavior the “old hand” problem. Senior judges, while technically retired, continue to control law and policy for this generation and future generations—thus casting doubt on the legitimacy of judicial decisions for three distinct reasons. When a circuit judge goes senior, they create an opportunity to fill a vacant seat with an ideologically compatible replacement, all while staying on to participate in panel decisions. That is court-packing. When a district judge goes senior, they get to choose their cases and pick their magistrate judge colleagues—instances of court-picking. And when chief judges invite senior judges to visit their courts to advance political goals, that allows for court-stacking. Together, court-packing, court-picking, and court-stacking are already eroding judicial legitimacy. I conclude by discussing some ways to address the old hand problem.
The Environmental Law and Community Engagement Clinic at the University of Virginia School of Law filed this amicus brief on behalf of San Bernardino...
Who has the legal right to challenge decisions by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration? And should the moral umbrage of a group of anti-abortion...
President Joe Biden promised during his State of the Union address on March 7, 2024, that he would make the right to get an abortion a federal law.
“If...
Gradualism should have won out in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, exerting gravitational influence on the majority and dissenters alike. In general...
Today, legal culture is shaped by One Big Question: should courts, particularly the US Supreme Court, have a lot of power? This question is affecting...
On December 15, 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued its decision in Illumina, Inc. v. FTC. Although the court vacated and...
On January 17, the Supreme Court heard arguments in what are potentially the most significant commercial law cases of the last decade. In the...
This Article introduces the Jurist-Derived Judicial Ideology Scores (JuDJIS), an expert-sourced measure of judicial traits that can locate nearly...
It is widely believed that President Donald Trump’s judicial appointments reflected a strategy of appeasing evangelical Christians and other religious...
Cyber stalking involves repeated, often relentless targeting of someone with abuse. Death and rape threats may be part of a perpetrator’s playbook...
We apply a dynamic influence model to the opinions of the U.S. federal courts to examine the role of the U.S. Supreme Court in influencing the...
Generative AI is already beginning to alter legal practice. If optimistic forecasts prove warranted, how might this technology transform judicial...
Professor Elizabeth Scott, the chief reporter of the American Law Institute’s (ALI) Restatement of Children and the Law, has often observed that the...
The idea of institutionalism figures prominently in today’s debates about the role of federal courts in American democracy. For example, Chief Justice...
The demise of Roe v. Wade has raised a host of religious liberty questions that were submerged prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v...