Williams, Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of California v. United States
Headline: Court declines to review challenge to Congress’s blocking of automatic cost-of-living pay increases for federal judges, leaving the lower-court ruling in place and preventing a Supreme Court decision now.
Holding: The Court declined to review the judges’ claim that Congress violated the Constitution by blocking automatic pay adjustments, leaving the lower-court decision in place and not resolving the constitutional pay question.
- Leaves the appeals court ruling intact, so judges’ blocked COLAs remain unresolved by the Supreme Court.
- Maintains congressional ability to use appropriations language to prevent automatic judicial pay adjustments.
- Keeps the constitutional question about judges’ real-pay protections unanswered at the highest court.
Summary
Background
A group of federal judges who were on the bench before 1989 sued the United States after Congress used appropriations language to block automatic annual cost-of-living pay adjustments created by the Ethics Reform Act of 1989. The Act limited outside income for judges and tied yearly pay adjustments to a private-sector salary index, minus a small amount. In 1995, 1996, 1997, and 1999 Congress blocked the judges’ automatic adjustments; district courts initially sided with the judges, but the Federal Circuit reversed in a 2–1 decision, and the judges asked the Supreme Court to review the case.
Reasoning
The central question was whether Congress may undo a prior statute’s promise to maintain judges’ real pay, given the Constitution’s command that judges’ compensation not be diminished during service. Justice Breyer, in a dissent from the Court’s denial of review, argued that the 1989 law created a protected expectation because it provided precise, mechanical adjustments and also reduced judges’ outside income. He said the appeals court’s reliance on an earlier case (United States v. Will) did not resolve this specific expectations question and that the matter raises important concerns about judicial independence. Breyer would have granted review to decide the issue.
Real world impact
Because the Supreme Court declined to hear the case, the appeals-court ruling stands and the constitutional question remains unresolved by the high court. Breyer warned that blocked adjustments have contributed to a roughly 25% decline in district judges’ real pay and higher resignation rates, potentially affecting judicial recruitment and independence. This denial is not a merits decision and the issue could return to the Court in another case.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Breyer wrote the dissent and was joined by Justices Scalia and Kennedy; he urged the Court to decide the important Compensation Clause question now.
Opinions in this case:
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?