When 92-year-old US District Judge Alvin Hellerstein took his seat to preside over the trial of Nicolas Maduro, it once again drew attention to a question that frequently arises outside the United States: why do American judges continue to serve well into advanced age? Judge Hellerstein’s role in such a high-profile case highlights how the US judicial system is designed and why advancing years alone rarely compel judges to step aside.
Hellerstein is widely regarded as a veteran of some of the most complex and politically sensitive cases to come before the federal courts. Over nearly thirty years on the bench, he has ruled on matters linked to the September 11 terror attacks, lawsuits related to genocide in Sudan, and cases involving former US President Donald Trump. His current oversight of the Maduro prosecution places him at the centre of one of the most consequential cases involving a foreign head of state in recent decades.
His courtroom experience also extends to individuals closely associated with the Venezuelan leadership. In April 2024, Hellerstein sentenced retired Venezuelan general Cliver Alcal to more than 21 years in prison for drug trafficking offences. Another prominent figure, former Venezuelan intelligence chief Hugo Carvajal, is also due to be sentenced by him in February. These cases underscore the continued reliance on senior judges to handle matters with deep international and legal ramifications.
In many countries, it would be unusual for a judge in his nineties to oversee proceedings of such magnitude. In the United States, however, this is not considered exceptional. The American judicial framework is built in a way that places far greater emphasis on independence and continuity than on age-based limits.
Under Article III of the US Constitution, federal judges, including those serving on the Supreme Court, are appointed for life. This system was intentionally designed to insulate judges from political influence and protect their ability to make decisions without fear of retaliation. There is no mandatory retirement age, and judges can remain in office as long as they believe they are capable of performing their duties, unless they are removed through impeachment for serious misconduct.
As life expectancy has increased, these lifetime appointments now often stretch across three or even four decades. Studies show that the average age of a federal judge is around 69, and there is no simple or automatic mechanism to force retirement based on age alone. As a result, the judiciary has steadily grown older over time.
Judges who wish to reduce their workload without fully retiring can opt for what is known as “senior status” after turning 65, provided they have completed at least 15 years of service. Those on senior status continue to receive their full salary but handle fewer cases, allowing new judges to be appointed while still retaining the experience of senior jurists. Even so, many judges choose to remain fully active for as long as possible.
Public debate about age and fitness tends to intensify mainly at the level of the Supreme Court. During Barack Obama’s presidency, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg faced repeated calls to retire because of health concerns, but she chose to remain on the bench. She died in office at the age of 87 in 2020, a development that allowed Donald Trump to appoint Amy Coney Barrett and significantly reshape the ideological balance of the court.
