Coming Off the Bench: Legal and Policy Implications of Proposals to Allow Retired Justices to Sit by Designation on the Supreme Court
Michael C. Dorf
Cornell Law School
Drexel University School of Law
February, 22 2011
Duke Law Journal, Vol. 61, No. 81, 2011
Cornell Legal Studies Research Paper No. 11-07
Drexel University Earle Mack School of Law Research Paper No. 2011-A-07
Senator Patrick Leahy recently introduced a bill that would override a New-Deal-era federal statute forbidding retired justices from serving by designation on the Supreme Court of the United States. The Leahy bill would authorize the Court to recall willing retired justices to substitute for recused justices. This Article uses the Leahy bill as a springboard for considering a number of important constitutional and policy questions, including: whether the possibility of 4-4 splits justifies substitution of a retired justice for an active one; whether permitting retired justices to substitute for recused justices would violate Article III’s requirement that there be “one Supreme Court;” and whether the ethical limitations on extra-judicial activities should be the same for active and retired judges and justices. In addition to relying on published material, the authors draw on information gleaned from their interview with retired Justice John Paul Stevens, who was the original source of the Leahy proposal.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 43
Keywords: Article III, retired, justice, recused, judges, Supreme Court, ConstitutionAccepted Paper Series
Date posted: February 22, 2011
© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo7 in 0.359 seconds