Gregory v. Ashcroft
Citation: 501 U.S. 452 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1991)
Facts
Missouri’s constitution required state judges to retire at age 70. Missouri judges challenged the mandatory retirement provision as a violation of the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), which prohibits age discrimination by employers. Missouri argued its judges were exempt from the ADEA under the “appointee on the policymaking level” exemption in the Act.
Issue
Does the ADEA’s prohibition on mandatory retirement apply to Missouri’s appointed state judges?
Holding
The Court (7–2, O’Connor, J.) held that the ADEA did not clearly apply to state judges and construed it not to reach them. The Court invoked the clear statement rule rooted in federalism: Congress must speak with unmistakable clarity before overriding a state’s authority over the qualifications of its own constitutional officers.
Rule
Where a federal statute would significantly interfere with the states’ ability to structure their own governments and define the qualifications of their officers — implicating core state sovereignty — courts require a clear statement from Congress that it intended such an intrusion. In the absence of clear congressional intent, courts construe the statute to avoid the constitutional question (the constitutional avoidance canon) and to respect federalism values (the federalism canon).
Significance
Gregory is the canonical case for the clear statement rule and the federalism canon in statutory interpretation. It illustrates how background constitutional values (here, federalism and state sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment) inform statutory construction even without triggering formal constitutional adjudication. The case is often taught alongside the constitutional avoidance canon and the distinction between using avoidance to narrow interpretation versus using it as an escape hatch.