Evans v. Gore
Headline: The Court struck down a federal law that taxed a federal judge’s salary, ruling judges’ pay cannot be diminished by income taxation and allowing recovery of unlawfully collected amounts.
Holding: The Court held that including a federal judge’s compensation in a federal income tax computation unlawfully diminished that compensation and was therefore unconstitutional.
- Prevents federal income tax from reducing federal judges’ official salaries.
- Allows judges to recover unlawfully collected tax on their salaries.
Summary
Background
A United States District Judge for the Western District of Kentucky sued to recover income tax money he had paid for 1918. The tax came from the Act of February 24, 1919, which by §213 required that the judge’s salary be included when computing net income. If that salary had been excluded, the judge would not have owed any tax for that year.
Reasoning
The Court’s majority focused on the Constitution’s provision that federal judges “shall receive for their services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.” The majority said this protection was meant to secure judicial independence and must prevent any law that by its operation takes back part of a judge’s pay. The opinion reviews history and past government practice, notes a prior 1860s controversy and refunds, and explains that the Sixteenth Amendment (about income taxes) did not intend to subject previously protected compensation to new taxation. The Court therefore held that including a judge’s salary in the income computation unlawfully diminished that compensation and invalidated the tax as applied.
Real world impact
The ruling means federal judges’ official salaries cannot be reduced by this kind of federal income tax, and the judge may recover amounts collected. Other income the judge has (property, investment income) remains taxable. The decision rests on constitutional protection for judges’ pay and rejects the government’s argument that the Sixteenth Amendment changed that protection.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Holmes (joined by Justice Brandeis) dissented, arguing the salary clause did not exempt judges from ordinary taxes and that the Sixteenth Amendment authorized taxing incomes “from whatever source derived,” so the tax should be valid.
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?