Leaving the Bench, 1970-2009: the Choices Federal Judges Make
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
University of Pennsylvania Law School Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository Faculty Scholarship 12-1-2012 Leaving the Bench, 1970-2009: The hoicesC Federal Judges Make, What Influences Those Choices, and Their onsequeC nces Stephen B. Burbank University of Pennsylvania, [email protected] S. Jay Plager United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Gregory Ablavsky University of Pennsylvania, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, Courts Commons, Judges Commons, and the Politics Commons Recommended Citation Burbank, Stephen B.; Plager, S. Jay; and Ablavsky, Gregory, "Leaving the Bench, 1970-2009: The hoC ices Federal Judges Make, What Influences Those Choices, and Their onC sequences" (2012). Faculty Scholarship. Paper 405. http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship/405 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. UNIVERSITY of PENNSYLVANIA LAW REVIEW Founded 1852 Formerly AMERICAN LAW REGISTER © 2012 by the University of Pennsylvania Law Review VOL. 161 DECEMBER 2012 NO. 1 ARTICLE LEAVING THE BENCH, 1970–2009: THE CHOICES FEDERAL JUDGES MAKE, WHAT INFLUENCES THOSE CHOICES, AND THEIR CONSEQUENCES STEPHEN B. BURBANK,† S. JAY PLAGER†† & GREGORY ABLAVSKY††† © Stephen B. Burbank, S. Jay Plager & Gregory Ablavsky, 2012. † David Berger Professor for the Administration of Justice, University of Pennsylvania. †† Circuit Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. ††† Sharswood Fellow in Law and History, University of Pennsylvania Law School; J.D., 2011, Ph.D. Candidate, 2014 (American Legal History), University of Pennsylvania. We owe special gratitude to James Duff, Judge Thomas Hogan, William Burchill, the late Steven Schlesinger, Carol Sefren, and their colleagues at the Administrative Office of the United States Courts for answering scores of questions and providing enormous quantities of data; to Dr. Margaret Williams of the Federal Judicial Center (FJC) for critical assistance in data identifica- tion, correction, and analysis, and to Judge Barbara Rothstein, then Director of the FJC, for making Dr. Williams available; to David Abrams for advice on statistical methods; to Tess Wilkinson-Ryan, Cary Coglianese, and Tom Baker for advice about composing questionnaires and conducting interviews; to numerous federal judges and court officials who consented to interviews; to the hundreds of federal judges who took the time to respond to our questionnaires; to Dr. (1) 2 University of Pennsylvania Law Review [Vol. 161: 1 For people of influence in any walk oflife, from corporate leaders to sports stars, the question of when to leave the stage is a crucial one. Do you go out at the top of your game, giving up any shot at further glory? Or do you dig in until the end, at the risk of tarnishing a distinguished career?1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. 3 I. THE STATUTORY HISTORY OF JUDICIAL CHOICES ....................... 6 II. RESIGNATION ............................................................................. 12 A. Why Judges Resigned in the Last Four Decades .................................. 12 1. Age and Health .................................................................... 13 2. Appointment to Other Office or Pursuit of Elected Office ..................................................................... 14 3. Dissatisfaction ...................................................................... 15 4. Return to Private Practice, Other Employment, Inadequate Salary ................................................................. 15 5. Allegations of Misconduct .................................................... 16 B. Analysis ...................................................................................... 16 III. SERVICE IN SENIOR STATUS ....................................................... 19 A. Introduction ................................................................................. 19 B. Some Demographic Characteristics of Judges in Senior Status, 1970–2009 .............................................................. 21 C. The Contemporary Functions of Service in Senior Status .................... 22 1. The Workload of the Federal Judiciary, 1970–2009 ............... 23 2. Authorized Judgeships and Vacancies, 1970–2009 ................. 26 3. The Ratio of Service in Senior Status to Regular Active Service ......................................................... 27 4. Case Work Performed by Judges Serving in Senior Status ...................................................... 28 5. Administrative Work Performed by Judges Serving in Senior Status ...................................................... 30 D. The Contemporary Working Conditions of Judges in Senior Status ........ 31 1. Salary, Benefits, and Collateral Financial Consequences ........ 31 Williams, Judge William Young, Judge Robert Katzmann, Judge Patrick Higginbotham, Judge Sarah Evans Barker, Professor Richard Vining, and participants in a Penn Law faculty ad hoc seminar for helpful comments on a draft; to Jeffrey DeWitt for data analysis; and to Donna Sisson for preparing and processing the questionnaires and responses. Finally, we thank Eric Laumann, Penn Law Class of 1991, for excellent research assistance on the history of the governing statutes; some projects take longer than others to reach fruition. 1 John Jurgensen, When to Leave the Stage, WALL ST. J., Dec. 3, 2010, at D1. 2012] Leaving the Bench 3 2. Other Terms and Conditions ............................................... 35 a. Privileges (Advantages) .................................................... 35 b. Disabilities (Disadvantages) .............................................. 38 i. Those Imposed by Statute ....................................... 38 ii. Those Not Imposed by Statute ................................ 40 E. The Questionnaire Survey ............................................................. 42 IV. RETIREMENT ............................................................................. 56 A. Introduction ................................................................................. 56 B. The Demographic Data: Retirements 1970–2009 .............................. 56 1. Frequency of Retirement ..................................................... 56 2. Retirements Delayed ........................................................... 61 3. Age at Retirement ............................................................... 61 C. What the Historical Record Teaches ................................................ 62 D. The Questionnaire Survey ............................................................. 67 1. Methodology ....................................................................... 67 2. The Results ......................................................................... 68 V. JUDGES IN REGULAR ACTIVE SERVICE ....................................... 75 A. Introduction ................................................................................. 75 B. Demographics .............................................................................. 76 C. The Questionnaire Survey ............................................................. 78 1. Regular Active Service vs. Senior Status .............................. 78 2. Regular Active Service vs. Retirement ................................. 83 VI. POLICY IMPLICATIONS ............................................................... 86 A. Resignation .................................................................................. 86 B. Retirement .................................................................................. 88 C. Senior Status ............................................................................... 91 INTRODUCTION The Constitution of the United States provides that the judges of courts that exercise the judicial power of the United States are entitled to office for life, subject only to a requirement of “good Behaviour,” with a compensa- tion “which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.”2 In order to safeguard the independence of the federal judiciary, the Founders specified that, once appointed, a federal judge could be removed from office only by impeachment for and conviction of “Treason, Bribery, or other high 3 Crimes and Misdemeanors.” 2 U.S. CONST. art. III, § 1. 3 Id. art. II, § 4. 4 University of Pennsylvania Law Review [Vol. 161: 1 During the first eighty years of the national government, there were three ways to leave the federal bench: removal following conviction after trial on articles of impeachment, resignation, and death. None of them entitled the judge (or his heirs) to any financial benefits. There was no provision for retirement or disability. Today, federal judges can still resign without financial benefit or remain in regular active service until death. Since 1869, however, Congress has recognized that the country’s interest in an experienced and effective national judiciary is best served by providing judges with additional alternatives. Initially, the only other alternative was retirement with an annuity after substantial service and attainment of a specified age. More recently,