Booth v. United States

Background

Two longtime federal judges, Wilbur F. Booth and Charles F. Amidon, retired under a statute that lets judges leave regular active service but continue to perform judicial duties. Each had received salary increases after appointment. Congress’s Independent Offices Appropriation Act of June 16, 1933, §13, temporarily reduced retired judges’ pay by 15 percent for a fiscal period. The two judges received lower payments, protested, and sued in the Court of Claims to recover the withheld amounts; the Court of Claims certified two legal questions to this Court.

Reasoning

The core questions were whether a judge who retires under the statute still holds the judicial office and whether Congress may cut a retired judge’s pay after it had been increased. The Court explained that retiring under the statute is a retirement from active service, not from the office itself: retired judges continue to hold their commission, may be called on to perform judicial duties, and thus remain in office. Because they remain in office, the Constitution’s rule that judicial compensation may not be diminished applies. The Court answered both certified questions “Yes.”

Real world impact

The decision protects retired federal judges who continue to perform judicial work from temporary congressional pay reductions like the 15 percent cut at issue. It supports the judges’ claims to withheld pay and limits Congress’s ability to reduce the retirement compensation of judges covered by the statute.