Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Massachusetts Board of Retirement v. Murgia

Supreme Court of the United States · 1976 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawEqual ProtectionAge ClassificationsMandatory RetirementEqual Protection ClauseFourteenth Amendmentrational basisstrict scrutiny

Facts

Massachusetts law required a uniformed state police officer with at least 20 years of service to be retired upon attaining age 50. Robert Murgia, a uniformed Massachusetts state police officer, was retired on his 50th birthday even though he had passed a rigorous annual physical examination four months earlier and was concededly capable of performing his duties. The Uniformed Branch's work included highway patrol, emergency response, crime investigation, apprehending suspects, and controlling disorders, and the record showed that the job could be arduous. Medical testimony established a general relationship between advancing age and declining physical ability, including increased risk of cardiovascular failure, although some individuals over 50 could still safely perform the job.

Issue

Whether Massachusetts' statutory requirement that uniformed state police officers retire at age 50 denies equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment. More specifically, the question was whether the age-50 classification must satisfy strict scrutiny or only rational-basis review, and whether it survives the applicable standard.

Rule

Under the Equal Protection Clause, strict scrutiny is required only when a legislative classification impermissibly interferes with the exercise of a fundamental right or operates to the peculiar disadvantage of a suspect class. A right to governmental employment is not fundamental, and age is not a suspect classification; therefore, an age-based mandatory retirement law is reviewed under rational-basis review and is valid if the classification is rationally related to a legitimate state interest.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Ohio requires all uniformed highway patrol officers to retire at age 52 after at least 20 years of service. Daniel Ortiz, a patrol officer in Columbus, sues after forced retirement, arguing the law should receive strict scrutiny because it deprives him of his government job.

Which standard of review should a court apply to Daniel's equal protection claim?

Explanation. Under the majority opinion, strict scrutiny applies only if a law burdens a fundamental right or targets a suspect class. Government employment is not a fundamental right for equal protection purposes, and age is not a suspect class. Therefore, an age-based mandatory retirement rule is reviewed under rational-basis review.