ILNews

Federal Circuit hears judges' pay case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A federal appellate court heard arguments Friday in a case that could ultimately decide if Congress has the authority to withhold judicial pay increases as it’s done in the past or whether cost-of-living adjustments are required.

The case of Peter H. Beer, et al. v. U.S., No. 09-1395, is before a Federal Circuit Court of Appeals panel, after the Supreme Court of the United States in June remanded the class-action lawsuit to decide a procedural question about preclusion and the notice requirements involved in class certification.

While the case is about judicial pay, those merits weren't considered Friday. Instead, the panel is currently weighing whether the case should be allowed to proceed.

Eight current and former federal judges from U.S. courts nationwide claimed that Congress in 1989 promised cost-of-living adjustments but failed to deliver them several times during the past two decades. They argue that failure equates to an unconstitutional diminishment of judicial pay. The American Bar Association urged the SCOTUS to take the case because it views the continued diminution of judicial salaries as a danger to the judiciary’s independence and quality of work.

In January 2010, the Federal Circuit affirmed a 2009 ruling by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, which had dismissed the case after holding the judges’ lawsuit was controlled by a 2001 case that rejected the same argument. After the plaintiffs asked the SCOTUS to take the case, the government opposed the request and argued that the judges’ claims depend on an interpretation of the Constitution’s compensation clause that the Federal Circuit had rejected in the 2001 case.

The SCOTUS ordered the Federal Circuit reconsider that issue, and that was the focus of Friday’s arguments.

The judges focused on the actual notice requirements in the class certification rules and how caselaw, even the most recent SCOTUS decision in Wal-Mart Stores Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011), factored into this set of circumstances.

At its heart, the case is about whether money-focused requests for relief require specific notice to class members who weren’t a part of the 2001 case or whether they are precluded from filing a new suit even if they didn’t know about the 2001 ruling. Some of the questions focused on whether actual notice is required.

Attorney Chris Landau with Kirkland & Ellis in Washington, D.C., argued on behalf of the plaintiffs, saying that this case comes down to due process. He said the court has an obligation to look after those absent class members to make sure they have adequate notice of the class-action requirements.

“This is kind of due process 101,” he said. “You can’t tell people, ‘Guess what… you can’t bring a lawsuit about your pay'… it’s hard to imagine a more classic monetary judgment matter than your pay.”

But Assistant Attorney General Tony West argued that the lower court’s judgment should be upheld because the plaintiffs in this case were bound by the 2001 decision rejecting the argument they’re making now.

“This case presents a lot of open questions that can be litigated, at least at the Supreme Court level,” he said.

The Federal Judges Association is an amicus curiae party in the case, which has national implications for federal judges throughout the U.S.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Good riddance to this dangerous activist judge

  2. What is the one thing the Hoosier legal status quo hates more than a whistleblower? A lawyer whistleblower taking on the system man to man. That must never be rewarded, must always, always, always be punished, lest the whole rotten tree be felled.

  3. I want to post this to keep this tread alive and hope more of David's former clients might come forward. In my case, this coward of a man represented me from June 2014 for a couple of months before I fired him. I knew something was wrong when he blatantly lied about what he had advised me in my contentious and unfortunate divorce trial. His impact on the proceedings cast a very long shadow and continues to impact me after a lengthy 19 month divorce. I would join a class action suit.

  4. The dispute in LB Indiana regarding lake front property rights is typical of most beach communities along our Great Lakes. Simply put, communication to non owners when visiting the lakefront would be beneficial. The Great Lakes are designated navigational waters (including shorelines). The high-water mark signifies the area one is able to navigate. This means you can walk, run, skip, etc. along the shores. You can't however loiter, camp, sunbath in front of someones property. Informational signs may be helpful to owners and visitors. Our Great Lakes are a treasure that should be enjoyed by all. PS We should all be concerned that the Long Beach, Indiana community is on septic systems.

  5. Dear Fan, let me help you correct the title to your post. "ACLU is [Left] most of the time" will render it accurate. Just google it if you doubt that I am, err, "right" about this: "By the mid-1930s, Roger Nash Baldwin had carved out a well-established reputation as America’s foremost civil libertarian. He was, at the same time, one of the nation’s leading figures in left-of-center circles. Founder and long time director of the American Civil Liberties Union, Baldwin was a firm Popular Fronter who believed that forces on the left side of the political spectrum should unite to ward off the threat posed by right-wing aggressors and to advance progressive causes. Baldwin’s expansive civil liberties perspective, coupled with his determined belief in the need for sweeping socioeconomic change, sometimes resulted in contradictory and controversial pronouncements. That made him something of a lightning rod for those who painted the ACLU with a red brush." http://www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/biographies/roger-baldwin-2/ "[George Soros underwrites the ACLU' which It supports open borders, has rushed to the defense of suspected terrorists and their abettors, and appointed former New Left terrorist Bernardine Dohrn to its Advisory Board." http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1237 "The creation of non-profit law firms ushered in an era of progressive public interest firms modeled after already established like the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People ("NAACP") and the American Civil Liberties Union ("ACLU") to advance progressive causes from the environmental protection to consumer advocacy." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cause_lawyering

ADVERTISEMENT