New York Law Journal: Absence of Judges' Raise Held Unconstitutional, But High Court Declines to Order Specific Remedy
02.24.10
Walter J. Storey
The denial of a raise to state judges for more than a decade violates the state Constitution, the state Court of Appeals ruled in a 5-1 opinion this morning.
However, the majority declined to order any specific remedy, saying only that it expects "appropriate and expeditious legislative consideration" of its decision.
The ruling adopts the argument of several judge-plaintiffs and the court system as a whole that the independence of the judiciary has been threatened by the improper linkage of judges' pay to other, unrelated issues.
See a list of briefs in Court of Appeals Case and earlier appellate rulings on judicial pay.
"Because the Separation of Powers doctrine is aimed at preventing one branch of government from dominating or interfering with the functioning of another co-equal branch, we conclude that the independence of the judiciary is improperly jeopardized by the current judicial pay crisis, and this constitutes a violation of the Separation of Power doctrine," Judge Eugene Pigott wrote for the majority in the three cases before the High Court.
The majority notes that "[a]ll parties agree that a salary increase is justified and, yet, those who have the constitutional duty to act have done nothing to further that objective due to disputes unrelated to the merits of any proposed increase. This inaction not only impairs the structural independence of the Judiciary, but also deleteriously affects the public at large, which is entitled to a well-qualified, functioning Judiciary."
However, the majority did not order any specific remedy for the constitutional violation, observing, in the words of a school aid case it cites, that the judiciary "must avoid intrusion on the primary domain of another branch of government."
Although the Court declines to order injunctive relief, Judge Pigott wrote, "When this Court articulates the constitutional standards governing state action, we presume that the State will act accordingly."
Judge Robert Smith dissented, saying that while it is "depressing" that pay considerations have driven many fine judges from the bench, "it is also true that there are still plenty of able judges, and plenty of able people who would willingly become judges, even at today's pay levels."
Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman recused himself because the court system he heads was a party.
Walter J. Storey
The denial of a raise to state judges for more than a decade violates the state Constitution, the state Court of Appeals ruled in a 5-1 opinion this morning.
However, the majority declined to order any specific remedy, saying only that it expects "appropriate and expeditious legislative consideration" of its decision.
The ruling adopts the argument of several judge-plaintiffs and the court system as a whole that the independence of the judiciary has been threatened by the improper linkage of judges' pay to other, unrelated issues.
See a list of briefs in Court of Appeals Case and earlier appellate rulings on judicial pay.
"Because the Separation of Powers doctrine is aimed at preventing one branch of government from dominating or interfering with the functioning of another co-equal branch, we conclude that the independence of the judiciary is improperly jeopardized by the current judicial pay crisis, and this constitutes a violation of the Separation of Power doctrine," Judge Eugene Pigott wrote for the majority in the three cases before the High Court.
The majority notes that "[a]ll parties agree that a salary increase is justified and, yet, those who have the constitutional duty to act have done nothing to further that objective due to disputes unrelated to the merits of any proposed increase. This inaction not only impairs the structural independence of the Judiciary, but also deleteriously affects the public at large, which is entitled to a well-qualified, functioning Judiciary."
However, the majority did not order any specific remedy for the constitutional violation, observing, in the words of a school aid case it cites, that the judiciary "must avoid intrusion on the primary domain of another branch of government."
Although the Court declines to order injunctive relief, Judge Pigott wrote, "When this Court articulates the constitutional standards governing state action, we presume that the State will act accordingly."
Judge Robert Smith dissented, saying that while it is "depressing" that pay considerations have driven many fine judges from the bench, "it is also true that there are still plenty of able judges, and plenty of able people who would willingly become judges, even at today's pay levels."
Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman recused himself because the court system he heads was a party.
The PRBA thanks its top sponsors >>
