|
Chief
Justice off Mark on Judges' Earnings Editorial Lawyers can earn more Chief Justice Roberts says that federal judges' salaries haven't kept pace with inflation, nor even with the pay of top law-school deans and senior law professors. Even some beginning lawyers will make more after a year than experienced federal judges earn, he says. Worse, the relatively poor pay ''will inevitably result in a decline in the quality of persons'' on the bench, amounting to a ''constitutional crisis,'' says the chief justice. With all due respect, Justice Roberts has got the case all wrong. Here's what federal judges make: District-court: $165,200. Appeals-court: $175,100. Chief justice: $212,000. Yes, many top lawyers earn much more. But judges work less, enjoy many perks, are appointed for life and have much-more generous benefits, including full pay for those who retire after age 65 with 15 years of experience on the bench. It is true that, compared to 40 years ago, federal judges make less today than top law-school deans and senior law professors. But many of these academics supervise larger staffs and have more administrative chores -- in addition to their legal duties -- than do federal judges. Linked to Congress Here's the heart of the matter: Judicial salaries haven't kept pace with inflation because Congress linked its members' pay to judges' pay. The idea was that it would be easier to pass pay hikes if the public perceived that the raises were for judges. This scheme was so transparent that Congress didn't have the courage to raise pay for several years, thereby creating the inflation gap in judicial pay. This phony linkage of congressional and judicial salaries is the problem. Yet, amazingly, Justice Roberts fails to argue for de-linking pay as a solution. More troubling is the chief justice's assertion that only less-qualified judges will work at current pay levels. This isn't true. It insults the intelligence and integrity of jurists who, as a body, are extraordinarily conscientious and productive. Despite the justice's
unhelpful remarks, federal judges really do deserve more pay. But
their salaries shouldn't be based on what law professors, law
partners or members of Congress make. Their pay should be set by an
independent commission that develops standards and criteria for
their compensation. By Dahlia Lithwick Pete Yost Pay for federal judges is so inadequate that it threatens to undermine the judiciary's independence, Chief Justice John Roberts says in a year-end report critical of Congress. Issuing an eight-page message devoted exclusively to salaries, Roberts says the 678 full-time U.S. District Court judges, the backbone of the federal judiciary, are paid about half that of deans and senior law professors at top schools. In the 1950s, 65 percent of U.S. District Court judges came from the practicing bar and 35 percent came from the public sector. Today the situation is reversed, Roberts said, with 60 percent from the public sector and less than 40 percent from private practice. Federal district court judges are paid $165,200 annually; appeals court judges make $175,100; associate justices of the Supreme Court earn $203,000; the chief justice gets $212,100. Thirty-eight judges have left the federal bench in the past six years and 17 in the past two years. The issue of pay, says Roberts, "has now reached the level of a constitutional crisis." "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," Roberts wrote. Legislation languished in Congress in 2006 that would have provided a 16 percent increase in federal judges' salaries. The bill was introduced by Democratic Sens. Dianne Feinstein of California, Patrick Leahy of Vermont and John Kerry of Massachusetts. Over the past 16 years, Congress has provided the judiciary occasional cost-of-living adjustments, but Roberts said the absence of salary increases is "grievously unfair." It is the first time in the two-decade history of year-end reports by Roberts and his predecessor, the late William Rehnquist, that the chief justice's message has focused entirely on a single subject. Roberts said the judiciary will not properly serve its constitutional role if it is restricted to people so wealthy that they can afford to be indifferent to the level of judicial compensation, or to people for whom the judicial salary represents a pay increase. There are "very good judges" in both of those categories, said Roberts, 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." "It changes the nature of the federal judiciary when judges are no longer drawn primarily from among the best lawyers in the practicing bar," Roberts wrote. The number of cases filed in the Supreme Court increased for the Court's 2005 term, according to an appendix to the report. Supreme Court case filings rose by more than 1,000 to 8,521 from the previous term. Appeals court filings dropped by 3 percent to 66,618 in 2006 compared with 2005. In federal district courts, the number of criminal cases filed in 2006 declined by 4 percent to 66,860 cases and 88,216 defendants, due to changing priorities directing more resources to combating terrorism. The civil caseload rose 2 percent to 259,541. Excluding a jump in asbestos-related cases, which totaled 18,179, the civil caseload fell by 4 percent. Roberts'
Annual Report Focuses By Tony Mauro The year 2005 was a stormy one for the judiciary, not only because of the death of Chief Justice William Rehnquist, but because of clashes with Congress over the Terri Schiavo case, the politicking over judicial nominees, and issues such as Supreme Court citation of foreign laws and precedents. Yet when Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. issued his first annual report on the state of the judiciary last week, he sidestepped those controversial questions and focused instead on what he saw as more bread-and-butter threats to judicial independence: low judicial salaries and high rental costs for courthouses. In doing so, he followed the precedent of predecessors Warren Burger and Rehnquist, who largely avoided controversial topics other than judicial salaries in their 30 years of annual reports. Higher pay for judges and rent relief for courthouses, Roberts said, would have a "vanishingly small" impact on the overall federal budget but "would go a long way toward maintaining a strong and independent federal judiciary with the resources to administer justice efficiently and fairly. And that is priceless." Roberts also called for increased security for judges in the wake of violence aimed at federal and state judges last year. Roberts issued the report three months into his tenure as chief justice, which he described as "a bit presumptuous," but said he did not want to break with the tradition of his predecessors. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), co-chair of the Congressional Caucus on the Judicial Branch, supports Roberts’ appeals, but expressed the hope that Roberts and the rest of the judiciary will do more to build public support for a more broadly defined brand of judicial independence. "He could set a completely new tone and make an outreach to Congress and to the public to help the people understand that the judge’s role is not to be popular," said Schiff. "He did not focus on that aspect of judicial independence." Schiff’s caucus comprises two dozen members of Congress interested in improving relations between the legislative and judicial branches. The caucus has not yet met with Roberts, Schiff said. The salary issue raised by Roberts is a recurring theme for chief justices; in 2002, as Roberts noted, the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist said he was ‘beating a dead horse’ by raising it. But the situation has only gotten worse, Roberts said, with the real pay of federal judges declining almost 24 percent since 1969. With a raise that began on Jan. 1, the annual salary of the chief justice went to $212,100. Associate justices are paid $203,000, while appeals judges get $175,100, and district court judges receive $165,200. "There will always be a substantial difference in pay between successful government and private sector lawyers," Roberts acknowledged in his written report. "But if that difference remains too large -- as it is today -- the judiciary will over time cease to be made up of a diverse group of the nation’s very best lawyers." Roberts noted that increasing numbers of judges are leaving the bench -- nine in the last year. "Every time a judge leaves the bench for a higher paying job, the independence fostered by life tenure is weakened," Roberts said. The rent complaint is a newer but growing problem. During the 2005 fiscal year, the judiciary paid $926 million to the General Services Administration in rent, Roberts said, even though the GSA’s actual cost of providing the space was $426 million. "The federal judiciary cannot continue to serve as a profit center for GSA," Roberts said. In part because of rising rents, about 1,500 jobs in the judicial branch were eliminated in the last two years. In testimony before Congress last June, GSA official F. Joseph Moravec defended GSA rental policies as "an honest accounting of the cost of occupancy" for high quality courtroom space. The judiciary is the GSA’s largest customer, he said, occupying 2,159 courtrooms and 39 million square feet, a threefold increase in the last 30 years. "It is high quality, functional space with befitting public areas, modern technological functionality and enhanced security features," said Moravec, commissioner of public building services.
|
|
A Feast
|
