By Anna Marie Kukec
Twenty federal judges won their battle to restore cost-of-living raises and to protect judicial independence with the help of seven bar associations."We are optimistic that if there is an appeal, we feel more bars will join us," says Richard William Austin, a Chicago lawyer who coordinated the bars’ effort.
The Chicago Bar Association began the effort more than a year ago and six more bars joined the federal lawsuit. They were: Boston Bar Association, Illinois State Bar Association, Los Angeles County Bar Association, New York County Lawyers Association, Ohio State Bar Association and Philadelphia Bar Association.
In July, the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., decided the case, Spencer Williams et al v. the United States, in favor of the judges. Federal judges nationwide sought cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) from 1993 to 1997, which total millions of dollars in back pay and raises.
The case was filed in December 1997 by 20 judges who stated that they did not receive COLAs. The bars filed their supporting brief in July 1998. At issue were 2 to 2.3 percent raises that judges did not receive while other federal employees received raises, in violation of the Ethics Reform Act of 1989. While the judges sought raises for 1993 to 1997, they did receive a 2.3 percent raise for 1998. However, in 1998, Congress blocked a 3.1 percent COLA for 1999. The court’s ruling also will affect the 1999 COLA, which was not part of the original case. As a result of the court’s decision, the following are the corrected salaries of federal judges:
The Supreme Court Chief Justice currently paid $175,400 will receive $192,500; Supreme Court associate justices from $167,900 to $184,100; Circuit Court judge from $145,000 to $159,100; and District Court judge from $136,700 to $150,000. While 20 federal judges were part of the original suit, three have since died. However, their estates will receive money owed to the deceased, according to Kevin Forde, the Chicago lawyer who represented the judges.
The combined careers of the jurists represent more than 400 years of service to the administration of justice. Recovery of these adjustments was not their primary objective in bringing this case, however, notes Forde.
"This case was brought to preserve the independence and quality of the judiciary. The quality of our justice must suffer if judges’ pay is effectively reduced year after year," Forde says.
In September, the federal government filed a notice of appeal, but, in early November, had not yet filed the actual appeal. In the meantime, the lawyers will calculate the total amount of money needed for Congress to provide the back pay.
U.S. District Court Judge John Garrett Penn of Washington, D.C., who issued the opinion, did not recuse himself or his court from deciding the case, even though he would also be affected by its outcome. Penn states that the court was not required to recuse or disqualify itself. "The case cannot be transferred to any Article III (federal) judge who does not have an interest in the outcome of the case simply because it affects every Article III judge. The court concludes that, pursuant to the Rule of Necessity, this court can hear and decide this case," Penn says.
Article III, Section I of the Constitution states that judges’ compensation, once set by law, may not be diminished. "This provision is designed to promote judicial independence, so judges cannot be threatened with compensation cuts, and to insure the quality of the judiciary," adds Forde.
Chicago Bar Association officials were delighted with the outcome of the case.
"It’s important that bar associations work together locally and across the nation on these issues because they affect all of us," says the bar’s Executive Director Terrence Murphy.
(Also see "Bars file amici curiae brief to support cost-of-living raises for judges," Bar Leader, Spring 1999, p. 4.)
The author is the reporter for Bar Leader
