Age no bar: 92-year-old judge takes charge of Maduro trial, spotlighting US judiciary’s lifetime tenure

When 92-year-old US District Judge Alvin Hellerstein took the bench to hear the criminal case against former Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro, it immediately drew attention — not just to the historic nature of the trial, but to the man overseeing it.

In many parts of the world, a nonagenarian judge handling such high-stakes litigation would be unthinkable. In the United States, it is unusual, but far from extraordinary.

Hellerstein’s presence in the Manhattan courtroom reflects a defining feature of the American judicial system: federal judges are appointed for life. Age alone is rarely a reason — or a legal basis — for stepping aside.

A veteran of nearly three decades on the federal bench, Hellerstein has long been entrusted with cases of national and international significance. His docket has included litigation linked to the September 11 attacks, claims arising from the Sudanese genocide, and cases involving US President Donald Trump. Now, he is presiding over one of the most consequential prosecutions of a foreign leader in recent memory.

His familiarity with the Maduro case runs deep. In April 2024, Hellerstein sentenced retired Venezuelan army general Cliver Alcalá to more than 21 years in prison on drug trafficking charges tied to the same alleged narco-terror network. Another key co-defendant, former Venezuelan intelligence chief Hugo Carvajal, is scheduled to be sentenced by him on February 23.

Why age rarely ends a us judge’s career

Under Article III of the US Constitution, federal judges — from district courts to the Supreme Court — receive lifetime appointments. The design is intentional, aimed at insulating judges from political pressure and safeguarding judicial independence. There is no mandatory retirement age, and judges may continue to serve as long as they are willing and able, unless removed through impeachment for serious misconduct.

As life expectancy has risen, judicial tenures have grown longer. Lifetime appointments now routinely stretch 30 or even 40 years. The average age of a federal judge is about 69, according to recent studies, and there is no simple mechanism to compel retirement, even amid concerns about age or health.

Judges who wish to reduce their workload without fully leaving the bench may assume “senior status” once they reach 65 and have served at least 15 years. Senior judges retain their full salary but take on a lighter caseload, allowing presidents to nominate replacements while preserving institutional experience. Many, however, choose to remain fully active.

Public debate over judicial age typically intensifies only at the Supreme Court level, where lifetime appointments carry enormous political stakes. During Barack Obama’s presidency, liberal icon Ruth Bader Ginsburg resisted calls to retire despite recurring health issues. Her death at 87 in 2020 enabled Donald Trump to appoint Amy Coney Barrett, cementing the court’s current 6–3 conservative majority.

Concerns over judicial fitness occasionally surface in lower courts as well. In August last year, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit extended the suspension of Judge Pauline Newman, then 98, after she refused to undergo neurological testing ordered during an investigation into her ability to serve. Newman, the longest-serving judge on that court and a prominent authority on patent law, challenged the suspension but lost.

Against this backdrop, Hellerstein’s role in the Maduro prosecution underscores a central reality of the US legal system: on the federal bench, experience often outweighs age — and stepping aside is a personal choice, not a legal mandate.