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.
Embedded in a recently decided Supreme Court case about Cuba and the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act—Exxon Mobil v. Cimex(opens in new tab)—was a...
The Supreme Court’s turn to “history and tradition” raises the critical question of what to do about “bad traditions.” If the customs of yore were...
On Friday, the archconservative U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit issued a stunning nationwide injunction that directly affects one-fourth of...
In the four years since the Supreme Court decided Dobbs, cases involving abortion have come before it repeatedly. Each time, the court has ducked the...
After an impatient wait, the U.S. Supreme Court finally handed down its opinion in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, the tariffs case, on Friday, Feb...
Under President Joe Biden, the U. S. Attorney General appointed a special federal prosecutor to investigate former President Donald Trump’s actions...
The Supreme Court’s current approach to religious freedom reflects an asymmetric view of religious motivation. Under the Free Exercise Clause, the...
Many disdain the use of consequences in legal interpretation. Yet it turns out that interpreters have long used consequences, particularly...
Treating a tax or tariff as different from a confiscation is an interpretive issue that should be decided by Congress, not the judiciary.
On Nov. 5...
In United States v. Skrmetti the Supreme Court will consider whether Tennessee’s broad prohibitions on gender-affirming care for minors violates the...
In Trump v. CASA, the Supreme Court held that district courts do not have the authority to issue “universal” injunctions that protect nonparties...
Until he joined the U.S. government in 1934, Robert H. Jackson had been a lawyer in private practice in Upstate New York who was admitted to the bar...
To uphold Tennessee’s ban on pediatric gender-affirming care, the court in United States v. Skrmetti hid from the specter of discrimination. The court...
Congress and the executive have engaged in major clashes over the scope of their powers, particularly involving Congress’s subpoena power and power of...
Following the Supreme Court’s momentous decision last term in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, much of the scholarly discussion has focused on...
Nationwide injunctions keep the Trump administration from violating federal law during the time it would take the US Supreme Court to intervene.
Trump v. United States is so intensely criticized that, in some quarters, it is at risk of being included in the anti-canon. It is alleged to be...