THE APEX TIMES
A federal case revived last month by a judge could require back pay and future salary adjustments for lawmakers, after plaintiffs argued congressional cost-of-living cuts violated the 27th Amendment.
A federal lawsuit that plaintiffs say could force taxpayers to pay millions in back pay and provide congressional members with a substantial salary increase is moving into what lawyers and watchdogs describe as a pivotal next stage, according to reporting on the case.
The suit, brought by a group of current and former members of Congress, targets a long-running pattern of actions to keep lawmakers’ pay from automatically rising with inflation. The plaintiffs argue that when Congress repeatedly canceled cost-of-living adjustments by voting to repeal a 1989 law designed to keep member salaries aligned with inflation, it violated the 27th Amendment, according to the New York Post.
In the case, a federal court ruled last month that the lawsuit could proceed, setting up further litigation on whether the congressional pay approach breaches the constitutional requirement that pay changes for members take effect only after an intervening election. The Post reported that if the judiciary agrees with the plaintiffs, taxpayers would face at least $69 million to make lawmakers whole, citing an estimate by the National Taxpayers Union.
The reported figures describe a potential federal budget impact in the form of back pay, which could be calculated to compensate members for the period during which cost-of-living adjustments were allegedly withheld. The Post also reported that lawmakers have kept annual pay fixed at $174,000 for nearly two decades, an arrangement that it said has drawn internal complaints while also reflecting a political sensitivity to appearing to benefit from self-dealing.
Among the plaintiffs identified in the reporting is Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.). The Post said Hoyer testified at an appropriations hearing last month and described hearing repeated requests from both sides to address stagnant pay while focusing on constitutional compliance, according to a quote attributed to him by the publication.
The lawsuit’s attorney, Ken Cuccinelli, was described in the Post as arguing that congressional pay adjusted for inflation is among the lowest it has been since 1954. In the same reporting, Cuccinelli was quoted saying their goal is to stop continual constitutional violations related to congressional pay, and describing his position as also being a legal matter, not just a policy dispute.
Because this is a federal constitutional challenge with multiple phases and fact-specific timelines for any remedy, the size of any payment obligation and the exact manner in which salary and back pay would be calculated would likely depend on further court orders. The reported estimates and claims about costs are contested and tied to the outcome of the constitutional question and the scope of any remedy the court chooses to apply.
