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


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. So the prosecutor made an error and the defendants get a full remedy. Just one short paragraph to undo the harm of the erroneous prosecution. Wow. Just wow.

  2. Wake up!!!! Lawyers are useless!! it makes no difference in any way to speak about what is important!! Just dont tell your plans to the "SELFRIGHTEOUS ARROGANT JERKS!! WHO THINK THEY ARE BETTER THAN ANOTHER MAN/WOMAN!!!!!!

  3. Looks like you dont understand Democracy, Civilized Society does not cut a thiefs hands off, becouse now he cant steal or write or feed himself or learn !!! You deserve to be over punished, Many men are mistreated hurt in many ways before a breaking point happens! grow up !!!

  4. It was all that kept us from tyranny. So sad that so few among the elite cared enough to guard the sacred trust. Nobody has a more sacred obligation to obey the law than those who make the law. Sophocles No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we ask him to obey it. Obedience to the law is demanded as a right; not asked as a favor. Theodore Roosevelt That was the ideal ... here is the Hoosier reality: The King can do no wrong. Legal maxim From the Latin 'Rex non potest peccare'. When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal. Richard Nixon

  5. So men who think they are girls at heart can use the lady's potty? Usually the longer line is for the women's loo, so, the ladies may be the ones to experience temporary gender dysphoria, who knows? Is it ok to joke about his or is that hate? I may need a brainwash too, hey! I may just object to my own comment, later, if I get myself properly "oriented"