United States v. Will
Headline: Court upholds Congress’ power to cancel planned judge pay increases before they take effect but strikes down retroactive pay cuts, protecting judges when raises already became part of their pay.
Holding:
- Allows Congress to cancel planned judge pay increases before they take effect.
- Blocks Congress from rolling back judicial pay after raises have started.
- Requires courts to calculate back pay when pay cuts are unconstitutional.
Summary
Background
A group of federal judges sued the United States after Congress and the President adopted four separate measures over four years that stopped, reduced, or rolled back automatic cost-of-living pay increases for high-level officials, including judges. The key facts are the timing: in two years Congress acted before the October 1 pay-change date, and in two years it acted on or after the pay-change date.
Reasoning
The Court addressed when a planned pay increase becomes part of a judge’s protected compensation. It held that an increase “vests” only when it actually takes effect and becomes payable to the judge. Using that rule, the Court found statutes that revoked raises after they had already begun (Years 1 and 4) violated the constitutional protection for judicial pay. By contrast, the Court upheld statutes that stopped planned increases before those increases took effect (Years 2 and 3). The Court also explained that judges could decide the case despite potential conflicts because the ancient Rule of Necessity overrides routine recusal rules.
Real world impact
As a practical matter, Congress may lawfully cancel or change an automatic pay formula if it does so before the scheduled pay date. But Congress cannot roll back pay after an increase has already become part of a judge’s compensation. The Court remanded to the lower court to calculate precise back pay for the years where the revocations were found unconstitutional.
Dissents or concurrances
No Justice wrote a dissent; Justice Blackmun took no part. The opinion was delivered by the Chief Justice and controls the outcome.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?