Text-Size -A+

January 2007

  • print
  • FAQs

This article is in the news archives --- for current news go to the Third Branch News.

 

2006 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary


Between December 19 and January 8 there are 32 college bowl Games—but only one Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary. I once asked my predecessor, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, why he released this annual report on the state of the federal courts on New Year’s Day. He explained that it was difficult to get people to focus on the needs of the Judiciary and January 1 was historically a slow news day—a day on which the concerns of the courts just might get noticed.

This is my second annual report on the Judiciary, and in it I am going to discuss only one issue—in an effort to increase even more the chances that people will take notice. That is important because the issue has been ignored far too long and has now reached the level of a constitutional crisis that threatens to undermine the strength and independence of the federal Judiciary.

I am talking about the failure to raise judicial pay. This is usually the point at which many will put down the annual report and return to the Rose Bowl, but bear with me long enough to consider just three very revealing charts prepared by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts. The first shows that, in 1969, federal district judges made 21 percent more than the dean at a top law school and 43 percent more than its senior law professors.

Today, federal district judges are paid substantially less than—about half—what the deans and senior law professors at top schools are paid. See, e.g., Report of the National Commission on the Public Service, URGENT BUSINESS FOR AMERICA: REVITALIZING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FOR THE 21ST CENTURY 22-23 (January 2003) (the Volcker Commission Report). (We do not even talk about comparisons with the practicing bar anymore. Beginning lawyers fresh out of law school in some cities will earn more in their first year than the most experienced federal district judges before whom those lawyers hope to practice some day.)

The next chart shows how federal judges have fared compared not to those in the legal profession, but to U.S. workers in general. Adjusted for inflation, the average U.S. worker’s wages have risen 17.8 percent in real terms since 1969. Federal judicial pay has declined 23.9 percent—creating a 41.7 percent gap.

Some of you may be thinking—"So what? We are still able to find lawyers who want to be judges." But look at the next and last chart. An important change is taking place in where judges come from—particularly trial judges. In the Eisenhower Administration, roughly 65 percent came from the practicing bar, with 35 percent from the public sector. Today the numbers are about reversed—roughly 60 percent from the public sector, less than 40 percent from private practice. It changes the nature of the federal Judiciary when judges are no longer drawn primarily from among the best lawyers in the practicing bar.

This is not the first time this issue has been raised in one of these annual reports. Twenty years ago Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist submitted his first year-end report. He specifically focused on the inadequacy of judicial compensation. He pointed out that Congress had failed, over a period of nearly two decades, to provide judges with salaries commensurate with increases in the cost of living and the importance of their responsibilities. Chief Justice Rehnquist emphasized that, because a capable and qualified federal Judiciary is essential to the proper functioning of our system of government, judicial compensation is critically important to the country as a whole. Congress responded to these arguments through the Ethics Reform Act of 1989, Pub. L. No. 101-94, 103 Stat. 1716 (1989), which provided for a phased-in adjustment that helped to make up for the previous years of salary erosion. However, the mechanisms set up in that Act to prevent future salary erosion have failed, and judicial salaries have continued to fall further and further behind the cost of living.

In the face of continuing congressional inaction to fix these problems, the late Chief returned to this subject again and again in his year-end reports. Sixteen years later, Congress has still not enacted a salary increase, providing instead only occasional and modest cost-of-living adjustments. A bad situation once again has reached the level of a crisis.

As Chief Justice Rehnquist observed, federal judges willingly make a number of sacrifices as a part of judicial life. They accept difficult work, public criticism, even threats to personal safety. Federal judges, who have historically been leaders of the bar before joining the bench, do not expect to receive salaries commensurate with what they could easily earn in private practice. They can rightly expect, however, to be treated more fairly than they have been. Judges, who have the obligation to make decisions without regard to public favor and who must frequently make unpopular decisions, have no constituency in Congress to voice their concerns. They must rely on fact, equity, and reason to speak on their behalf. Those considerations make clear that the time is ripe for our Nation’s judges to receive a substantial salary increase.

Congressional inaction in the face of this situation is grievously unfair. Since Chief Justice Rehnquist first called for a pay raise twenty years ago, the decline in real compensation has continued. Judges who willingly make substantial sacrifices in support of public service are being asked to bear unreasonable burdens. In the face of decades of congressional inaction, many judges who must attend to their families and futures have no realistic choiceexcept to retire from judicial service and return to private practice. The numbers are sobering. In the past six years, 38 judges have left the federal bench, including 17 in the last two years. If judicial appointment ceases to be the capstone of a distinguished career and instead becomes a stepping stone to a lucrative position in private practice, the Framers’ goal of a truly independent Judiciary will be placed in serious jeopardy.

Inadequate compensation directly threatens the viability of life tenure, and if tenure in office is made uncertain, the strength and independence judges need to uphold the rule of law—even when it is unpopular to do so—will be seriously eroded. And as Alexander Hamilton explained, “[t]he independence of the judges once destroyed, the constitution is gone, it is a dead letter; it is a vapor which the breath of faction in a moment may dissipate.” Commercial Advertiser (Feb. 26, 1802) (reprinted in The Papers of Alexander Hamilton, Volume XXV 525 (Columbia University Press 1977).

The American people and their government have a profound stake in the quality of the Judiciary. The dramatic erosion of judicial compensation will inevitably result in a decline in the quality of persons willing to accept a lifetime appointment as a federal judge. Our Judiciary will not properly serve its constitutional role if it is restricted to (1) persons so wealthy that they can afford to be indifferent to the level of judicial compensation, or (2) people for whom the judicial salary represents a pay increase. Do not get me wrong—there are very good judges in both of those categories. But a Judiciary drawn more and more from only those categories would not be the sort of Judiciary on which we have historically depended to protect the rule of law in this country.

We are at the point where reason commands action. The National Commission on the Public Service described judicial pay as "the most egregious example of the failure of federal compensation policies" and unambiguously recommended, four years ago, that Congress enact "an immediate and substantial increase in judicial salaries." Volcker Commission Report 22. The budgetary cost of that action is miniscule in proportion to its value in preserving the strong and independent Judiciary that is vital to our constitutional structure. No doubt a judicial salary increase would be unpopular in some quarters, but Congress—like the courts—must sometimes make decisions that are unpopular in the short term to promote a greater long-term good. Congress has a constitutional responsibility to do so.

I raised the issue of judicial compensation in my first year-end report. Much of what I say in this report is not new. Nevertheless, I have no choice but to highlight this issue because without fair judicial compensation we cannot preserve the quality and independence of our Judiciary, which is the model for the world.

As we enter the new year, the federal Judiciary remains strong, but it needs the support of the coordinate branches if it is to maintain the strength and independence it must have to fulfill its constitutional role. That is the challenge for the coming year.

I thank the judges and court staff throughout the country for their continued hard work and dedication. I am very grateful for the personal sacrifices they and their families make every day. As Robert Frost reminded us “from the heart,” we work as one, whether "together or apart." I extend to all best wishes for a Happy New Year.