Judges These Days Are Actually Too Young, 91-Year-Old Says

At 91, Brooklyn federal Judge Frederic Block doesn’t see the need to impose an age limit on judges, even as age-related controversies in the judiciary have sparked a national debate.

The bigger problem, he said, is that judges these days are too young.

“They don’t have the background,” Block told Bloomberg Law. “They don’t have the experiences that I had when I got on the bench.”

Asked if rather than a retirement age, there should be an age minimum, he called it “not a bad idea,” noting he didn’t get on the bench until he was appointed, at 60, by President Bill Clinton. (He took senior status in 2005.)

His remarks come as Judge Pauline Newman, 98, sues her colleagues on the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit after being barred from new case assignments in 2023 amid a court probe into her fitness to serve. She was suspended after refusing to sit for an independent neuro-psychological examination. Her case is on appeal.

Newman has said she’s fit to serve and is the target of fabrications for frequently dissenting.

Block’s not your average 91-year-old. He’s plowing ahead on the bench, presiding over the case of alleged Mexican drug kingpin Rafael Caro Quintero, who inspired the Netflix show “Narcos.” The next court date is in September. Federal prosecutors are weighing the death penalty.

He’s juggling that with multiple side hustles. Block, a Cornell Law graduate, has written a legal thriller and, last year, a book on sentencing called, “A Second Chance: A Federal Judge Decides Who Deserves It.” He’s now working on a book on civic education with the working title, “Can They Fix Tickets?”

He recently tried his hand at stand-up comedy with a set Manhattan’s Gotham Comedy Club. “You—what are you doing out of the can?” he joked to an audience member. “I put you in there five years ago!”

When he isn’t presiding over cases, he spends time at his villa in Greece, where he conducted this interview.

“They do all the things we’re not supposed to do” in Greece, he said. “They don’t eat until 10 o’clock. They smoke. They dance. They go to sleep at 1 in the morning. And they live longer than we do. Why? Because they don’t have as much as stress as we do.”

He talked about how judges can stay sharp and his concerns about President Donald Trump’s judicial picks.

Q: How has your thinking as a judge changed since you’ve gotten older?

A: I call it judicial maturation, because no question about it, when you’re on the bench 30 years, you’re not exactly the same person you were in year one. In year one, you want to pass the bad smell test; you don’t want people to think you’re a jerk, that you don’t belong on the bench. You’re worried about getting reversed, people like you writing bad things about me.

But after 30 years, you’re a little bit more secure, hopefully, with yourself, and it frees you up in a strange way.

Q: When you were a newer judge, did you feel pressure to hand down heavier sentences?

A: I didn’t feel that pressure, but it’s in your head, even if it’s subliminally or subconsciously. Why? Because the first thing when you become a district court judge, they’re going to send you down to school for new judges.

And then you’re going to be exposed to somebody who’s going to lecture you about sentencing. They tell you, “Look, you’re not going to get in any trouble if you give a sentence within the guideline range.”

So you may say, “Well, I’m here for life, I’m free,” but that’s baloney. Because you don’t want to be looked upon in a negative way—especially when you’re young. So the sentences you render, if you’re a new judge, are going to be more strict.

Q: How are you making sure you’re still up to speed and capable of the job?

A: We do have aging judges—Judge Pauline Newman. You know about Judge Zilly. Now you know about Block.

You’re not going to get effective information from your law clerks, because they think everything you do is great. Your family, maybe—my Greek wife is a pretty tough gal. You have to pay a lot of attention to your doctors. You really should ask them to give you some cognitive tests. You should have the judicial maturation to realize that as you age your capabilities may be diminished.

Other than that, you gotta go by your sense of responsibility that you have as a human being, as a jurist, to do the right thing. When I feel like I’m slipping, I’m quitting. I think I’m still okay. If I can make you laugh a little bit, that gives me some feedback.

Q: Do you think there should be a mandatory retirement age for federal judges?

A: On balance, I think we’re better off not creating a mandatory retirement age. New York State, a lot of states, have a 70-year age limit for judges. It’s ridiculous. We’re losing a lot of real talent because of that. I really am concerned about fixing an arbitrary number.

We may have a greater problem today with the fact that the judges are too young, rather than too old. They don’t have the background. They don’t have the experiences that I had when I got on the bench. They don’t have the trial experience. They don’t have the educational background. I think the greater problem we have now is with the young—too young—judges, rather than too old judges.

How do we get them to understand what judicial maturation is all about? How do we get them to make decisions which are more compatible with having some seasoning under your belt and some experiences under your belt? My concern is more the younger judges—30s, early 40s—that are being put on circuit courts of appeals. To me that’s the larger problem.

By and large, the judges who are being appointed by the current administration tend to be young, white males. They’re pretty bright. These are not necessarily rubber stamps. But the problem is not with the intelligence of these appointments. The problem is that I think they’re too young, and I think some of them have a lot of pressure to do things that they’re supposed to do for political purposes.

This interview has been condensed and edited.