Opinion ID: 3046880
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: R eaction to A ct 44

Text: “T here was a negative public response to [Act 44], focusing particularly upon its timing and method of passage . . . .” Stilp, 905 A.2d at 925. Several state-court actions challenged Act 44’s validity. See id. at 926-28. Four months after its enactment, the G eneral Assembly, on November 16, 2005, repealed Act 44 “in its entirety” and reinstated the previous pay scheme (“Act 72”). 2 App. at 1 The Pennsylvania Supreme Court later held this legislative process did not violate the Pennsylvania C onstitution. See Stilp v. Commonwealth, 905 A.2d 918, 951-59 (Pa. 2006). 2 A ct 72 w as intended to decrease all state officials’ salaries to pre-Act 44 levels. Because Act 72 repealed Act 44, the district court in this litigation held that Plaintiffs’ claim s seeking a declaration that A c t 44 w a s unconstitutional were now moot. See Common Cause, 447 F. Supp. 2d at 424. After the district court dismissed Plaintiffs’ case in its entirety, however, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held (continued...) 10 2 (...continued) that Act 72 was itself unconstitutional insofar as it decreased judges’ salaries. See Stilp, 905 A.2d at 939, 949. Specifically, the court held that Act 72 violated the Pennsylvania Constitution’s provision stating that “Justices, judges and justices of the peace . . . shall be compensated by the Commonwealth as provided by law. Their compensation shall not be diminished during their terms of office, unless by law applying generally to all salaried officers of the Commonwealth.” Id. at 929-30 (citing Pa. Const. art. V, § 16(a)). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court went on to conclude, however, “our finding of this unconstitutional effect does not taint the remainder of A ct 72. Thus, we find that the remainder of A ct 72’s repeal of Act 44 is valid.” Id. at 949. Because part of Act 44, the portion increasing judges’ salaries, thus remained in effect, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court went ahead and addressed the validity of that statute. The court held that the manner in which the General Assem bly enacted Act 44 did not violate Pennsylvania’s constitution. See id. at 949-59. But Act 44’s provision of unvouchered expenses to state legislators— a thinly veiled attempt to permit current legislators to enjoy the Act’s pay increase, contrary to state law— was invalid. See id. at 960-70. The state supreme court then held that, (continued...) 11 2 (...continued) notwithstanding Act 44’s express non-severability clause, the Act actually left it to “the Judiciary to make the ultimate determination of severability.” Id. at 973. The court then severed the invalid provision of Act 44— the provision of “unvouchered expense[s]” for legislators— from the “otherwise-constitutionally valid remainder of Act 44.” Id. at 980-81. The ultimate result of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s analysis was “that Act 44’s provisions . . . which relate solely to the formula to determine compensation paid to the Judiciary, remain[ed] in force.” Id. at 981. The court further noted, this Court did not draft or play any role in the enactment of the legislation that became Act 44. That legislation, passed by the General A ssembly and duly signed by the Governor, set the compensation judges were to receive, and in July of 2005 the Judiciary began receiving that compensation, only to have the compensation unconstitutionally reduced by Act 72. The Constitution of Pennsylvania m andates that the Judiciary shall be compensated as provided by law. To (continued...) 12 2 (...continued) effectuate that constitutional command, w e order that the Treasurer of the Commonwealth: (1) shall forthwith calculate judicial compensation in accordance with Act 44, as explained in this Opinion; and (2) shall, upon receipt of vouchers prepared by the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts, reimburse members of the Judiciary for the unconstitutional diminution in compensation effected by Act 72. Id. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in Stilp was entered September 14, 2006. See id. at 918. Ten months later, on July 13, 2007, the Pennsylvania legislature enacted a third statute, Act 30, which replaced the reinstated portions of Act 44 regarding judges’ salaries. Apparently in order to avoid the Pennsylvania constitution’s prohibition against the legislature reducing the salaries of sitting judges, Act 30 gave the judges a one dollar raise from their salaries as they existed on that date, July 14, 2007, and enacted a new formula for calculating future cost-of-living raises for state court judges. The parties appear to agree that Act 30 repealed the remaining portion of Act 44 reinstated by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. (continued...) 13 53; see Stilp, 905 A.2d at 924-25 & 924 n. 3.