Monday, December 17, 2007
Tweet[IWS] CRS: Judicial Salary: Current Issues and Options for Congress, December 12, 2007
IWS Documented News Service
_______________________________
Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach
School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies
Cornell University
16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky
New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau
________________________________________________________________________
Congressional Research Service (CRS)
Order Code RL34281
Judicial Salary: Current Issues and Options for Congress, December 12, 2007
Kevin M. Scott, Analyst on the Federal Judiciary, Government and Finance Division
http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34281_20071212.pdf
[full-text, 44 pages]
Summary
Several federal judges, including the Chief Justice of the United States, have
expressed concern over the level of judicial salary. Chief Justice Roberts has called
the current levels of judicial salary a "constitutional crisis" that threatens the
independence of the federal courts. The most common arguments for raising judicial
salary claim that low judicial salaries (1) limit the ability of the federal judiciary to
draw on a diverse pool of candidates for positions on the federal bench; (2) force
federal judges concerned about their financial futures to resign from the bench before
they become eligible for retirement; and (3) drive other federal judges, upon
becoming eligible for retirement, to retire completely (to earn extra income outside
the judiciary), rather than remain to assist the courts as judges on "senior status."
Opponents of raising judicial salary generally question whether variations in judicial
salary affect recruitment and retention of federal judges.
Examination of the available evidence on the effect of judicial salary on judicial
recruitment and retention suggests (1) trends away from appointing judges directly
from private practice and toward appointing federal judges who are already in the
judiciary (as state judges or federal bankruptcy or magistrate judges) date to before
the most recent decline in judicial salaries, (2) federal district court judges are not
resigning from the federal bench at rates much higher than historical averages, and
(3) the percentage of judges who chose retirement in lieu of senior status has also not
risen markedly in the last several years. From an examination of data on judicial
departures, we are unable to identify a conclusive relationship between judicial salary
and federal district court judges' decisions to resign or retire.
Should Congress wish to address the issue of judicial salary, it has several
options. In addition to increasing the pay of federal judges on a one-time basis by a
specific amount or percentage, Congress might consider "de-linking" congressional
and judicial salaries, providing that judges receive salaries based on their cost of
living, revising retirement benefits, adjusting survivor benefits for the spouses and
dependents of federal judges, altering outside income limits, convening the Citizens'
Commission on Public Service and Compensation, or enacting automatic adjustments
for judicial salary.
Four bills concerning judicial salary have been introduced in the 110th Congress:
S. 197 would adjust the salaries of federal judges upward by 1.7%, S. 1638 would
increase the salaries of federal judges by 50.0%, S. 2353 would increase the salaries
of federal judges by 16.5%, and H.R. 3753 would increase the salaries of most
federal judges by 41.3% and permit cost-of-living adjustments to judicial salaries to
go into effect unless Congress passed legislation stopping them from doing so.
This report will be updated as events warrant.
______________________________
This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.
Stuart Basefsky
Director, IWS News Bureau
Institute for Workplace Studies
Cornell/ILR School
16 E. 34th Street, 4th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (607) 255-2703
Fax: (607) 255-9641
E-mail: smb6@cornell.edu
****************************************
_______________________________
Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach
School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies
Cornell University
16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky
New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau
________________________________________________________________________
Congressional Research Service (CRS)
Order Code RL34281
Judicial Salary: Current Issues and Options for Congress, December 12, 2007
Kevin M. Scott, Analyst on the Federal Judiciary, Government and Finance Division
http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34281_20071212.pdf
[full-text, 44 pages]
Summary
Several federal judges, including the Chief Justice of the United States, have
expressed concern over the level of judicial salary. Chief Justice Roberts has called
the current levels of judicial salary a "constitutional crisis" that threatens the
independence of the federal courts. The most common arguments for raising judicial
salary claim that low judicial salaries (1) limit the ability of the federal judiciary to
draw on a diverse pool of candidates for positions on the federal bench; (2) force
federal judges concerned about their financial futures to resign from the bench before
they become eligible for retirement; and (3) drive other federal judges, upon
becoming eligible for retirement, to retire completely (to earn extra income outside
the judiciary), rather than remain to assist the courts as judges on "senior status."
Opponents of raising judicial salary generally question whether variations in judicial
salary affect recruitment and retention of federal judges.
Examination of the available evidence on the effect of judicial salary on judicial
recruitment and retention suggests (1) trends away from appointing judges directly
from private practice and toward appointing federal judges who are already in the
judiciary (as state judges or federal bankruptcy or magistrate judges) date to before
the most recent decline in judicial salaries, (2) federal district court judges are not
resigning from the federal bench at rates much higher than historical averages, and
(3) the percentage of judges who chose retirement in lieu of senior status has also not
risen markedly in the last several years. From an examination of data on judicial
departures, we are unable to identify a conclusive relationship between judicial salary
and federal district court judges' decisions to resign or retire.
Should Congress wish to address the issue of judicial salary, it has several
options. In addition to increasing the pay of federal judges on a one-time basis by a
specific amount or percentage, Congress might consider "de-linking" congressional
and judicial salaries, providing that judges receive salaries based on their cost of
living, revising retirement benefits, adjusting survivor benefits for the spouses and
dependents of federal judges, altering outside income limits, convening the Citizens'
Commission on Public Service and Compensation, or enacting automatic adjustments
for judicial salary.
Four bills concerning judicial salary have been introduced in the 110th Congress:
S. 197 would adjust the salaries of federal judges upward by 1.7%, S. 1638 would
increase the salaries of federal judges by 50.0%, S. 2353 would increase the salaries
of federal judges by 16.5%, and H.R. 3753 would increase the salaries of most
federal judges by 41.3% and permit cost-of-living adjustments to judicial salaries to
go into effect unless Congress passed legislation stopping them from doing so.
This report will be updated as events warrant.
______________________________
This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.
Stuart Basefsky
Director, IWS News Bureau
Institute for Workplace Studies
Cornell/ILR School
16 E. 34th Street, 4th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (607) 255-2703
Fax: (607) 255-9641
E-mail: smb6@cornell.edu
****************************************
# posted by SBasefsky : 12:05 PM
