ILNews

Judicial pay case gets ABA support

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Rehearing

The American Bar Association wants the Supreme Court of the United States to take a case that asks whether congressional denial of cost-of-living adjustments for federal judges compromises judicial independence and violates the Constitution.

Eight current or former federal judges from District and Circuit levels are embroiled in litigation that’s gone as high as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which challenges the lawmakers’ refusal to adjust salaries six times during the past 20 years – even though the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 stipulated that Congress would have to authorize these “non-discretionary” automatic annual COLAs for federal judges and other senior officials.

The judges initially filed suit in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in January 2009, but the court dismissed that complaint, Peter H. Beer, et al. v. U.S., No. 09-1395, in October. The judges appealed and filed for a ruling en banc with the Federal Circuit, but the appellate court declined in January. The judges filed a writ for certiorari in May.

In a brief filed June 17, the ABA contends that the justices’ review is warranted because the continued diminution of judicial salaries threatens the judiciary’s independence and quality of work. Judges across the nation have advocated for salary increases for the federal judiciary, including those from Indiana and members of the Supreme Court of the United States.

Chief Justice John Roberts has called for Congress to raise judges’ salaries by as much as 24 percent, and he has said that low salaries hurt the courts’ ability to hire and retain qualified judges.
 

Rehearing of "Judicial COLA loses carbonation again" IL Dec. 24, 2008-Jan. 6, 2009

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Bob Leonard killed two people named Jennifer and Dion Longworth. There were no Smiths involved.

  2. Being on this journey from the beginning has convinced me the justice system really doesn't care about the welfare of the child. The trial court judge knew the child belonged with the mother. The father having total disregard for the rules of the court. Not only did this cost the mother and child valuable time together but thousands in legal fees. When the child was with the father the mother paid her child support. When the child was finally with the right parent somehow the father got away without having to pay one penny of child support. He had to be in control. Since he withheld all information regarding the child's welfare he put her in harms way. Mother took the child to the doctor when she got sick and was totally embarrassed she knew nothing regarding the medical information especially the allergies, The mother texted the father (from the doctors office) and he replied call his attorney. To me this doesn't seem like a concerned father. Seeing the child upset when she had to go back to the father. What upset me the most was finding out the child sleeps with him. Sometimes in the nude. Maybe I don't understand all the rules of the law but I thought this was also morally wrong. A concerned parent would allow the child to finish the school year. Say goodbye to her friends. It saddens me to know the child will not have contact with the sisters, aunts, uncles and the 87 year old grandfather. He didn't allow it before. Only the mother is allowed to talk to the child. I don't think now will be any different. I hope the decision the courts made would've been the same one if this was a member of their family. Someday this child will end up in therapy if allowed to remain with the father.

  3. Ok attorney Straw ... if that be a good idea ... And I am not saying it is ... but if it were ... would that be ripe prior to her suffering an embarrassing remand from the Seventh? Seems more than a tad premature here soldier. One putting on the armor should not boast liked one taking it off.

  4. The judge thinks that she is so cute to deny jurisdiction, but without jurisdiction, she loses her immunity. She did not give me any due process hearing or any discovery, like the Middlesex case provided for that lawyer. Because she has refused to protect me and she has no immunity because she rejected jurisdiction, I am now suing her in her district.

  5. Sam Bradbury was never a resident of Lafayette he lived in rural Tippecanoe County, Thats an error.

ADVERTISEMENT