In State v. Buckner (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. May 5, 2014), the main question is whether the New Jersey Constitution’s mandatory judicial retirement provision, under which certain kinds of judges
shall be retired upon attaining the age of 70 years
allows such judges to be recalled for temporary service. A New Jersey statute allows the Supreme Court to recall judges this way, and the question is whether “retired” means “disqualified from active service, but subject to possible callback to temporary service” or means “disqualified from all judicial service.” The two-judge majority said the recall was permissible; the one-judge dissent said it wasn’t. An interesting example of debates about constitutional interpretation, outside the usual political controversies.