Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Raise judicial pay

Chief Justice John Roberts has issued his second year-end report on the health of the federal judiciary by stating as loudly and clearly as possible that judges need a raise. Lagging federal judicial pay has been an ongoing problem for decades now. Yet, despite repeated pleas by the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Congress has inexcusably failed to address the matter, and, as Roberts warned, it has now reached a tipping point. It appears that more judges with lifetime appointments are actually leaving the bench in order to better provide for their families and future.

Most Americans would probably see the $165,200 salary made by a federal district judge as a very comfortable living. But it is seriously deficient when considered in light of other legal professionals. Over time, judicial salaries have eroded so sharply in relative value that federal district judges often now make less than the young law firm associates who come before them. Roberts, the highest-paid federal jurist, makes $212,100 a year. He points out that in real terms, judicial pay has declined nearly 24 percent since 1969. Where once judges made 21 percent more than a dean at a top law school would earn, today judges make about half a law school dean's salary.

Certainly, accepting a federal judgeship is an act of public service and salaries should not be commensurate with what top litigators in private practice earn. But reasonable raises that keep up with the cost of living should be the norm, and they haven't been. Moreover, Congress seems tone deaf to the issue. Whether because of a general antipathy toward the judicial branch or the view that federal judges should make no more than lawmakers, Congress has abdicated its constitutional duty.

As described by the National Commission on the Public Service, judicial pay is "the most egregious example of the failure of federal compensation policies." Four years ago, it recommended to Congress that it enact "an immediate and substantial increase in judicial salaries." Yet, so far, nothing.

The Constitution's authors thought it so important that federal judges receive a salary that could not be reduced, they wrote the guarantee into our founding document. It was understood that Congress might interfere with the independence of the judiciary by playing games with judges' salaries, and the founders were not going to let that happen.

But letting a salary erode is essentially the same thing, and the consequences have been predictable. Some of the best legal minds are taking a pass on joining the federal bench, and some of our veteran judges are leaving to seek more lucrative employment in the private sector. Roberts is right that the judicial branch's strength and independence are being compromised. Congress needs to act.

[Last modified January 6, 2007, 22:51:57]