After spending 22 years as a U.S. district judge and five years as a magistrate judge, I made the tough decision to retire in 2016. It was important to me to leave while I was still at the top of my game, ready for a “third act” in life. Some of my colleagues have retired for different reasons. For example, I knew one judge who left after just a few years. He told me he didn’t become a judge to sentence low-income drug offenders or immigrants. He chose to work in healthcare, which he found more fulfilling.
Other judges left to pursue new challenges. One judge decided to build a law firm from scratch, feeling that judging didn’t push him in the way that entrepreneurship would. Another went on to create a successful alternative dispute resolution practice. At least four judges I know retired to teach full-time or part-time at universities. Some even moved on to high-ranking roles in government. But, to be clear, none of the judges I know left because they were overwhelmed by their caseloads.
After nearly my entire career in government service, I felt it was time for a change. Today, I work as an arbitrator and mediator and take on special master assignments from various courts. It’s been incredibly rewarding, offering fresh challenges and a new sense of purpose.
After the last presidential election, several judges who had planned to retire once a successor was chosen decided to stay on. Some Republican lawmakers, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, accused them of playing partisan politics by holding off on retiring, preventing President-elect Donald Trump from picking their successors.
But let’s talk about McConnell for a second. His complaint is rich. When President Barack Obama was in office, McConnell and the Republican-controlled Senate blocked Obama’s pick for the Supreme Court after Justice Antonin Scalia died. McConnell argued it was too close to the election to make a nomination, even though Obama still had nearly a year left in office. Fast forward to 2020 when Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed away just weeks before the election. McConnell didn’t hesitate. He rushed through the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett, denying President Joe Biden the chance to make that appointment.
So, the idea that some judges are only retiring now to deny Trump the chance to choose their replacements seems like just another round of partisan gamesmanship. Here’s what really happened: A bipartisan bill that would have created 66 new judgeships passed in the Senate in August, but the Republican-controlled House didn’t act on it until after the election. By then, it was clear Biden would become president. This was a strategic delay to see who would win before making any moves.
Despite the need for more judges — there are now over 81,000 civil cases pending for more than three years — President Biden has said he would veto the bill if it passes. Why? Because signing it would give Trump the power to appoint even more conservative judges.
And now, the judges who’ve chosen to stay on and delay their retirements are being criticized for making their decisions based on election results. But let’s be real. Considering the current political landscape, it’s hard to blame them. They don’t want their seats filled with more conservative judges, like U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, who tried to outlaw the abortion pill.
So, is it wrong for these judges to consider the political climate before retiring? In my opinion, no. But you can decide for yourself after taking a closer look at how partisan politics has shaped the selection of judges.
