Have there been legal challenges to the age requirements for president or vice president?
Executive summary
Legal challenges to the Constitution’s 35‑year minimum for President and Vice President have been rare and have not succeeded in overturning that requirement; scholars and government guides record the floor of 35 years but note the absence of a successful court challenge [1] [2]. Multiple commentators and recent articles have proposed debating upper‑age caps, but the Constitution contains no maximum and proposals to add one would require amendment [3] [4].
1. The constitutional baseline: 35 is written into Article II
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution expressly makes the President (and by practice the Vice President when acting as President) ineligible unless the person has “attained to the Age of thirty five Years” and other residency and citizenship qualifications; the Library of Congress’s Constitution Annotated summarizes that rule and the Framers’ intent to ensure maturity and experience [1] [5].
2. How courts and authorities treat the rule: challenges are virtually nonexistent and unsuccessful
Authoritative summaries — including the Constitution Center — say that age limits for the presidency and Congress “haven’t been successfully challenged in court,” and they cite specific attempts such as Peta Lindsay’s 2012 run (when she was 27) that did not erase the constitutional minimum [2]. Available sources do not describe any federal court decision that has invalidated or narrowed the 35‑year requirement [2].
3. Ballot access fights and candidacy attempts illustrate the practical side
Young activists and minor‑party candidates have repeatedly tested the rule by seeking ballot access despite being under 35; some campaigns and state election officials treated those bids as tests, but the overall reporting shows that such efforts have not produced a binding judicial change to the constitutional clause [2] [6]. Specific state‑level ballot barriers have been enforced when candidates failed to meet the age floor [6].
4. No constitutional maximum age — and the political push for one
The Constitution sets only a minimum age; there is no upper‑age cap on serving as President or Vice President. Legal explainer sites note that omission and point out that presidents have been elected well into their 70s and older without any constitutional bar [3]. Polling and opinion pieces show growing public interest in imposing maximum ages, but those would require a constitutional amendment — a difficult political path [4] [7].
5. Why courts have little role in changing age qualifications
Age qualifications are explicit constitutional text. Courts generally interpret such clear eligibility clauses narrowly and defer to the text rather than substitute policy judgments; that makes judicial overturning unlikely absent a constitutional amendment or a high‑profile novel legal theory not present in current reporting [1] [2]. Available sources do not report any court embracing an equal‑protection or other constitutional theory that struck down the 35‑year rule.
6. Reform options: amendment, Congress, or state experimentation
Because the 35‑year floor is constitutional, the primary legal route to change it is amendment — requiring two‑thirds of both houses of Congress and ratification by three‑quarters of states — or a constitutional convention called by states, which has never been used successfully [4]. Commentators propose political solutions — Congress study, commissions, or ballot measures on related issues like maximum ages — but such proposals remain in opinion and advocacy pieces rather than settled law [8] [7].
7. What the record shows and what it doesn’t
The reporting and legal summaries assembled here establish two clear facts: the President/Vice President minimum age is 35 in the Constitution [1], and challenges to that requirement have not produced a successful judicial reversal [2]. Available sources do not mention any court decision invalidating the age requirement, nor do they describe a constitutional amendment changing it [2] [1].
Limitations and competing viewpoints: sources like LegalClarity and opinion commentators argue for reconsidering maximum ages as a policy matter [3] [7], while constitutional scholars emphasize the Framers’ rationale for a minimum and the practical difficulty of amendment [1] [4]. Readers should note the distinction between legal change (requires amendment or unprecedented court rulings) and political debate (ongoing in media and advocacy circles).