When is long enough enough for a judicial term?

I‘ve heard periodically some conversations about attorneys practicing law much longer than they should because they develop significant cognitive deficits.  I’ve also heard similar conversations occasionally about judges, primarily in the context of judges who hold lifetime appointments. The AP ran a story in early November on this topic, featuring the efforts of the 9th Circuit to address the issue of judges who experience significant cognitive declines while still sitting the bench.

[T]he 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which includes federal courts in California and eight other Western states, has taken a more pro-active approach to the problem of mental decline by trying to get its judges to think about the condition, plan for it and handle it appropriately if it comes up.

The circuit court holds regular seminars led by neurological experts to teach its chief judges about the signs of cognitive impairment. It has set up a hotline where court staff and judges can get advice about dealing with signs of senility in colleagues. It has also encouraged judges to undergo cognitive assessments and designate colleagues, friends or family who can intervene if concerns arise about their mental health.

The article discusses the pros and cons of mandatory retirement or term limits and notes that the 10th Circuit had two cases that might fall in the category of cognitive decline. The article quotes a 9th Circuit judge who decided to stop hearing almost all cases in an abundance of caution. This judge noted that “‘if the goal is to work until you are no longer able, you will work a couple of years too long…'”

The AP story was picked up by a number of publications, including the ABA Journal