Opinion ID: 846
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Events after the Williams decision

Text: After our decision in Williams the Court decided United States v. Hatter, 532 U.S. 557, 121 S.Ct. 1782, 149 L.Ed.2d 820 (2001), reviewing application of the Compensation Clause to legislation imposing certain taxes from which the judiciary had previously been exempt. The Court in Hatter explained that the imposition of a new financial burden solely on judges affected the constitutional guarantee of judicial freedom from discriminatory legislative action: Were the Compensation Clause to permit Congress to enact a discriminatory law with these features, it would authorize the Legislature to diminish, or to equalize away, those very characteristics of the Judicial Branch that Article III guarantees  characteristics which, as we have said, the public needs to secure that judicial independence upon which its rights depend. We consequently conclude that the 1983 Social Security tax law discriminates against the Judicial Branch, in violation of the Compensation Clause. Hatter, 532 U.S. at 576, 121 S.Ct. 1782. The principles elaborated in Hatter have not yet been applied to the situation confronted in Williams and raised by the Beer appellants. Another post- Williams event is relevant, a legislative enactment specific to judges. This statute, referred to by the parties as Section 140 (tracking its origin in a 1981 appropriations act) is as follows: Notwithstanding any other provision of law or of this joint resolution none of the funds appropriated by this joint resolution or by any other Act shall be obligated or expended to increase, after the date of enactment of this joint resolution, any salary of any Federal judge or Justice of the Supreme Court, except as may be specifically authorized by Act of Congress hereafter enacted: Provided, That nothing in this limitation shall be construed to reduce any salary which may be in effect at the time of enactment of this joint resolution nor shall this limitation be construed in any manner to reduce the salary of any Federal judge or of any Justice of the Supreme Court. This section shall apply to fiscal year 1981 and each fiscal year thereafter. 28 U.S.C. § 461 note. This enactment, Pub.L. No. 107-77, tit. VI, § 625 (Nov. 28, 2001), has been interpreted by the government as undoing the automatic cost-of-living provision in the 1989 Ethics Act, and has been so implemented. Thus judges do not receive a government-wide cost-of-living adjustment unless authorized by a specific act of Congress. Congress did authorize such adjustment for several years, but not for the year 2007, and not for 2010. The shift from the blocking legislation in the 1990s that grouped judges with members of Congress and other senior officials for the purpose of cost-of-living adjustments, which this court considered in Williams, to this 2001 enactment that isolates judges for differential treatment, raises new concerns in light of the Hatter Court's holding that discriminatory treatment of judges is prohibited by the Compensation Clause. See Hatter, 532 U.S. at 561, 121 S.Ct. 1782 (the clause ... does prohibit taxation that singles out judges for specially unfavorable treatment). These ensuing events could not have been considered by the Williams court. They appear to reflect continuing departure from constitutional principles, and to encroach on the fundamentals of judicial independence. Judicial independence requires independence of thought, and independence from influence. The Framers designed an elegant balance, implementing Hamilton's insight that a power over a man's subsistence amounts to a power over his will. The Federalist No. 79, at 472 (C. Rossiter ed.1961), quoted in Hatter, 532 U.S. at 568, 121 S.Ct. 1782. All branches of government, indeed all citizens, share the responsibility of preservation of constitutional principles. New issues do not diminish our obligation of zealous preservation of the fundamentals of the nation. The question is not how much strain the system can tolerate; our obligation is to deter potential inroads at their inception, for history shows the vulnerability of democratic institutions. As the Court pointed out in Hatter, the guarantees of complete independence of the courts of justice were deemed necessary because the Judiciary is `beyond comparison the weakest of the three' branches of Government. 532 U.S. at 568, 121 S.Ct. 1782 (quoting The Federalist No. 79, at 472). Although judges may be uncomfortable in the role of debating our compensation, this court's decision in Williams has affected the entire judiciary. [3] It behooves us to accept the appeal en banc. From my colleagues' denial of the petition, I respectfully dissent.