Several federal judges are postponing their retirement plans following the election of President-elect Trump, prompting sharp criticism and accusations of partisanship.

This decision has intensified debates over the strategic timing of judicial retirements and its impact on the balance of the federal judiciary, The Hill reported.

Judges Change Plans After Trump Victory

In the wake of the recent presidential election, a group of federal judges appointed by Democrats has decided to delay retirement. Among them is Judge James Wynn, who had previously planned to step down from active service on the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. However, he reversed his decision after his proposed successor’s nomination stalled in the Senate.

U.S. District Judges Max Cogburn and Algenon Marbley, both appointees of Democratic presidents, also rescinded their intentions to take senior status. Their decisions came shortly after President-elect Trump’s victory and have sparked accusations of politicizing the judiciary.

The practice of judicial retirements coinciding with political cycles has drawn increased scrutiny. Experts highlight the significant influence of politics on these decisions, a trend that appears to be growing over time.

Experts Highlight Political Influence On Retirement Timing

Legal scholars emphasize that judges enjoy broad discretion over when to retire, but the political implications of their timing are undeniable. “It seems like the assumption of senior status and retirement has become more politicized and partisan as the Senate grows increasingly polarized,” said Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond.

John P. Collins, a professor at George Washington University, noted that judges often consider multiple factors, including the political environment. “Particularly recently, the party of the president who is going to appoint the replacement is clearly one of those factors,” Collins explained.

Another academic, Christina Boyd from Washington University in St. Louis, described the decision-making process as a mix of personal and political considerations. “It is pension plus politics that drives a lot of these decisions,” she remarked, noting that judges typically wait for their pensions to vest before retiring.

Senate Leaders Criticize Judges’ Decisions

The delayed retirements have not gone unnoticed by Republican leaders. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell described the situation as “Democratic blue where there should only be black robes.” His comments reflect widespread frustration among conservatives about what they view as partisan manipulation of the judiciary.

Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina echoed McConnell’s sentiment, labeling the judges’ actions as deserving of ethics complaints and demands for recusal. Tillis specifically criticized Judge Wynn, citing the controversy surrounding his withdrawn successor.

The conservative advocacy group Article III Project has filed judicial misconduct complaints against Judges Wynn, Cogburn, and Marbley. These complaints underline the broader accusations of partisanship aimed at the judiciary.

Trend Evident Across Political Spectrum

Despite the focus on Democratic-appointed judges, similar behavior has been observed among Republican appointees. Judges Rudolph Randa, Michael Kanne, and Karen Caldwell, all named to the bench by Republican presidents, previously withdrew plans to assume senior status for political reasons.

An analysis published in the Minnesota Law Review revealed a clear trend of judges timing their retirements to align with the party of the sitting president. This pattern, according to experts, underscores how deeply intertwined the judiciary and politics have become.

Criticism of this practice is not limited to one political party. Advocacy groups and think tanks from across the ideological spectrum have condemned the manipulation of judicial successions as detrimental to the integrity of the courts.

Calls For Reform To Address Concerns

As the debate over judicial retirements intensifies, many are calling for reforms to reduce the influence of politics on these decisions. Some legal scholars argue for stricter guidelines governing when judges can transition to senior status, aiming to depoliticize the process.

Others advocate for increasing transparency around judicial retirement decisions. By making the process more open, proponents hope to curb accusations of partisanship and restore public trust in the judiciary.

While these proposals remain under discussion, the controversy surrounding the current wave of delayed retirements underscores the urgent need for a broader conversation about judicial ethics and independence.