CREATORS: Time for Term Limits for Federal Judges

Matthew T. Mangino
CREATORS
June 9, 2026

In 1787, when the U.S. Constitution was being drafted in Philadelphia, the average life expectancy for a man who reached age 25 was about 72 years.

The founding fathers never contemplated that a U.S. Supreme Court justice would serve 35 years on the bench. In October, Justice Clarence Thomas will do just that. Last month, Thomas became second only to Justice William O. Douglas in court longevity. Douglas served 36 years on the high court, beginning before World War II and ending after the Vietnam War.

According to Professor and former federal Judge Nancy Gertner, Justice Thomas is far from alone in the last half-century. "Justice John Paul Stevens served nearly 35 years before he stepped down in 2010. In the last fifty years, Justices William J. Brennan Jr., Hugo Black, William Rehnquist and Anthony Kennedy all joined the three-decade club." Gertner continued, "The average justice's tenure is now more than 28 years."

When Brennan retired, he was 90 years old. If Clarence Thomas lasts as long as Brennan, he will have spent 47 years on the Supreme Court. That is not good for the Court and not good for democracy.

The GOP understands the power of lifetime appoints. The last three justices appointed by a Republican are ages 61, 58 and 54, respectively. They could all serve into their 70s, which means more than two decades on the court.

How do you stop the threat of despotic judicial control? Term limits.

Why aren't term limits in place already? According to The New York Times, until recently, there was no clear need for term limits. Throughout most of American history, the average justice served for about 15 years.

Life tenure and salary protection were granted to federal judges because the Constitution's framers knew that judges would sometimes be called on to make unpopular decisions, reported the Brennan Center. In Federalist Paper 78, Alexander Hamilton wrote that life tenure would contribute to an "independent spirit in the judges which must be essential to the faithful performance of so arduous a duty." The Brennan Center suggested that if judges instead had to depend on periodic reappointment, there would be a "danger of an improper complaisance" to the appointing branch of government. Such a system would "be fatal" to judges' "necessary independence."

Hamilton was referring to all federal courts, not just the Supreme Court. Term limits should be equally applied to all federal judges. There are 890 federal judges in this country, including the Supreme Court. According to Maryland Today, the median age of a federal judge hit 70 for the first time in 2023. In fact, 10% of federal judges are 85 years or older.

This spring, Federal Judge Pauline Newman asked the Supreme Court to let her return to the bench. Judge Newman is 98 years old. She has been off the court for three years due to questions about her competency.

Term limits would also bring the federal judiciary in line with the 49 states that have some sort of mandatory retirement for judges. Rhode Island is the outlier as the only state that does not limit the age or mandate the retirement of judges.

U.S. Representative Tom Barrett (R-MI) has proposed a constitutional amendment mandating term limits for judges of the Supreme Court and all federal judges. An amendment requires approval by two-thirds of the members of both the House and the Senate and ratification by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states

Barrett's resolution provides, "Each judge of the Supreme Court and each inferior court shall be appointed to serve during good behavior for a term of 20 years." The amendment would not be retroactive. The term limits would only apply "to an appointment occurring on or after the date of the ratification of this article."

Term limits for federal judges may be a hard sell, but it is worth the effort. The courts need consistent turnover; a single party or ideology dominating the court is bad for America.

Matthew T. Mangino is of counsel with Luxenberg, Garbett, Kelly & George P.C. His book, "The Executioner's Toll," 2010, was released by McFarland Publishing. You can reach him at www.mattmangino.com and follow him on Twitter @MatthewTMangino

To vistit Creators CLICK HERE

Ninety-eight year old federal judge wants to hear cases again

A federal judge who has been sidelined for three years over questions about her competency is asking the Supreme Court to throw her a lifeline, reported NPR. Judge Pauline Newman is 98 years old — and she wants a chance to hear cases again.

Her story shines a light on the aging judiciary, where the average age of federal jurists is 69. Lifetime tenure is now raising thorny questions about retirement.

Newman, a President Ronald Reagan appointee who has been on the court for nearly four decades, insists that she remains physically and mentally fit to decide matters of the law, and has accused her colleagues of making baseless claims in an effort to push her out because of her age.

Federal judges serve for life--no mandatory retirement, no limit on how long they serve.

To read more CLICK HERE

FBI fires analyst tied to warning of violent Catholic 'extremist'

Several FBI analysts tied to the creation of a 2023 memo warning of a potential threat from Catholic “violent extremists” were fired, according to their lawyer, the latest wave of terminations under the leadership of its director Kash Patel, reported The Associated Press.

The fired employees included four intelligence analysts and a supervisory analyst. The FBI declined to comment.

“This action is manifestly unjust, completely unsupported by the facts, and subverts standard FBI policy and procedure,” their lawyer, David Laufman, said in a statement. “These individuals deserved far better for the exceptional and faithful public service they rendered to protect our country.”

The January 2023 intelligence product produced by analysts in the FBI’s Richmond, Virginia, field office emerged as a political flashpoint after it was issued, with Republicans in Congress repeatedly citing it as part of their broader contention that the FBI during the Biden administration was targeting conservatives.

The firings are part of a broader personnel purge under Patel, a Trump loyalist who over the last year, has pushed out dozens of employees who either contributed to investigations of the president or who were perceived as not in alignment with the administration’s agenda. The Justice Department has engaged in similarly sweeping firings of prosecutors since Trump took office last year.

To read more CLICK HERE

Justice Thomas is now the second longest serving justice in U.S. history

As of May 7, Justice Clarence Thomas is the second-longest-serving Supreme Court justice in American history, reported The New York Times. When he took his judicial oath on Oct. 23, 1991, nearly half of Americans alive today were not yet born. “Text” was a noun and not a verb. Justice Thomas now trails only William O. Douglas, who served 36 years before stepping down in 1975 (although much of his last year was overshadowed by a stroke that left him partly paralyzed and paranoid).

Justice Thomas is far from alone in his durability. Justice John Paul Stevens served nearly 35 years before he stepped down in 2010. In the past half-century, Justices William J. Brennan Jr., Hugo Black, William Rehnquist and Anthony Kennedy all joined the three-decade club. The average justice’s tenure is now more than 28 years, by far the longest among modern democracies.

To read more CLICK HERE

Will Blanche ever be more than the 'acting' attorney general?

Senators voted to confirm Todd Blanche for deputy attorney general in early 2025, but there’s no guarantee they will now vote to install him as the nation’s chief law enforcement officer, reported Politico.

Blanche, now serving as acting attorney general, faces a potentially rocky path through the Senate, with multiple key Republicans not immediately committing to supporting President Donald Trump’s expected nominee to run the Department of Justice.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune told reporters Thursday it was “hard to say” if Blanche would have a difficult time getting confirmed to succeed Pam Bondi, who was ousted from the position back in April.

“Most of our members are pretty deferential to who the president wants in some of these key positions,” Thune said, but added, “This is an environment where nothing’s a safe or sure bet these days.”

Trump’s nominees can lose three Republican votes and still be confirmed by calling in Vice President JD Vance to break a tie.

But the bigger hurdle could be getting Blanche through the Senate Judiciary Committee, where opposition from one Republican is enough to bottle up a nomination unless the nominee can also get help from Democrats on the panel. It’s not likely Blanche would get that bipartisan support.

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) is viewed as the critical vote for Blanche to win over on the Judiciary Committee. Tillis has vowed he won’t support Justice Department nominees who he views as sympathetic those who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, and previously told POLITICO that the Justice Department’s “Anti-Weaponization Fund” would be a factor in whether or not an attorney general nominee is able to be confirmed.

Blanche told House appropriators Tuesday that the Trump administration would not go forward with administering payouts to individuals deemed victims of “lawfare” by the federal government. But the attempt to establish such an account has continued to present a political problem for Republicans, with many seeing Blanche as the face of the effort.

“What we need to do right now is focus on the [Anti-Weaponization] Fund, or he’s not going to have a very good time in Judiciary Committee,” Tillis, who will retire after the end of this year, told reporters when asked about Blanche’s forthcoming nomination. “Just think about what the Democrats would do to him.”

To read more CLICK HERE

 

Florida carries out its eighth execution of 2026

The 15th Execution of 2026

A Florida man, Andrew Richard Lukehart, who confessed to killing his girlfriend’s infant daughter and throwing her body in a pond three decades ago was executed June 2, 2026, according to The Associated Press.

Lukehart, 53, was pronounced dead at 6:19 p.m. after receiving a three-drug injection at Florida State Prison near Starke. He was sentenced to death after being convicted of first-degree murder and aggravated child abuse in 1997 for the death a year earlier of 5-month-old Gabrielle Hanshaw.

When the curtain of the execution chamber went up at 6 p.m., Lukehart was already strapped to a table with an IV in his arm. A priest sat at the foot of the table to pray over him as he died.

When a warden asked Lukehart if he had a final statement, he raised his head to look at a group in the front row of the viewing area and said, “I’m sorry.”

Lukehart then recited the Bible verse Luke 23:34, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do,” which Scripture says Jesus Christ uttered during his crucifixion.

Lukehart lost consciousness almost immediately after the administration of the lethal drugs began. Several minutes into the execution, the warden shook Lukehart and shouted his name, but there was no reaction.

A medic was called in to check his vital signs, and he was declared dead several minutes later.

Lukehart declined a last meal and did not receive any visitors before the execution, though he did meet with a spiritual adviser, Department of Corrections spokesperson Jordan Kirkland said during a news conference.

This was Florida’s eighth execution so far this year, following a record 19 executions in 2025. Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis oversaw more executions in a single year in 2025 than any other Florida governor since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976. The previous record was set in 2014 with eight executions.

According to court records, Lukehart was watching his girlfriend’s baby in February 1996 while his girlfriend was caring for her older daughter, who had been ill. At some point, the girlfriend said Lukehart drove away from their Jacksonville home, and she couldn’t find baby Gabrielle. Lukehart called his girlfriend about 30 minutes later and told her to call police because the baby had been kidnapped and he was chasing the kidnapper.

Later that evening, Lukehart was found in a neighboring county after driving his car off the road. During questioning the next day, Lukehart told investigators that Gabrielle died after he dropped the baby on her head and then shook her. He told police that he panicked and threw the baby in a pond. Law enforcement officers searched the pond and found the child’s body.

The Florida Supreme Court denied Lukehart’s appeals last week. His attorneys had claimed that medication he was taking for kidney disease could have a negative reaction with the lethal injection drugs. They also argued that having only a month between the signing of Lukehart’s death warrant and the execution deprived him of his due process.

The U.S. Supreme Court denied Lukehart’s final appeal Monday.

A total of 47 people were executed in the U.S. in 2025. Florida led the way with a flurry of death warrants signed by DeSantis. Alabama, South Carolina and Texas tied for second with five executions each.

Another execution is planned in Florida later this month. Dusty Ray Spencer, 74, was convicted of fatally stabbing his wife in 1992.

All Florida executions are carried out via lethal injection of a sedative, a paralytic and a drug that stops the heart, according to the Department of Corrections.

To read more CLICK HERE

CREATORS: Landmark Decision of Miranda v. Arizona Turns 60

Matthew T. Mangino
CREATORS
June 2, 2026

Sixty years ago this month, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Miranda v. Arizona that police officers are required to inform a suspect that he has the right to remain silent and the right to legal counsel when being questioned.

During the court argument, Justice Potter Stewart asked Attorney John J. Flynn, representing Ernesto Miranda, what rights an accused should be advised of while in custody. Flynn replied, "(H)e had a right not to incriminate himself, that he had the right not to make any statement, that he had a right to be free from further questioning ... to be represented adequately by counsel in court, that if he was too indigent and poor to employ counsel, that the state would furnish him counsel."

Everyone with a television or iPad has heard the words of Attorney Flynn. As I and many others have noted, the landmark Supreme Court decision has become a part of American culture. Miranda's conversion from legal holding to cultural icon is due mainly to the nation's insatiable appetite for crime dramas.

What did Miranda do to earn his place in the American consciousness? In 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested for robbery. While in the midst of a custodial interrogation by police, he confessed to raping an 18-year-old woman. At trial, prosecutors offered his confession into evidence. Miranda was convicted of rape and sentenced to prison. He appealed and his case made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Miranda and excluded his confession. Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote the court's opinion, holding that a confession would be barred under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments unless a suspect had been made aware of his rights and had waived them. Warren made it clear, "If the individual indicates in any manner, at any time before or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease ... If the individual states that he wants an attorney, the interrogation must cease until an attorney is present."

As we mark the sixtieth anniversary of Miranda, it is important to note that the U.S. Supreme Court has continually tested, and at times expanded and restricted, the decision.

For instance, in 1981, the Edwards rule was established. The Court held that once an accused invoked his right to have counsel present during custodial interrogation, a valid waiver of that right could not be later established. The rule created a presumption that once a suspect invoked his right to the presence of counsel pursuant to Miranda, any waiver of that right in response to a subsequent police attempt at custodial interrogation was involuntary.

That changed in 2010. In a case out of Maryland, the Court established a bright-line rule, finding that if at least 14 days passed from the time the suspect invoked his rights under Miranda, the police could again initiate an interrogation of the suspect.

In 2013, in a case out of Texas, a murder suspect who answered questions for almost an hour was then asked by police if the shotgun shells found at the murder scene would match a shotgun found in his home. The suspect stopped talking.

The police made notes of his conduct once he stopped talking. According to the Supreme Court, the suspect "(l)ooked down at the floor, shuffled his feet, bit his bottom lip, cl(e)nched his hands in his lap, (and) began to tighten up."

That conduct was used at his trial as evidence that he was hiding his guilt. The Supreme Court found that silence was not enough to invoke the right to remain silent.

Then in 2022, the high Court ruled that a violation of Miranda rules does not provide grounds for an individual to sue police officers for money damages for violating a suspect's civil rights under federal law.

Although revered as a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, the scope and breadth of Miranda has been somewhat diminished.

Matthew T. Mangino is of counsel with Luxenberg, Garbett, Kelly & George P.C. His book, "The Executioner's Toll," 2010, was released by McFarland Publishing. You can reach him at www.mattmangino.com and follow him on Twitter @MatthewTMangino

To visit Creators CLICK HERE