Chief Justice William Rehnquist said that lagging judicial pay was the "most pressing issue" facing federal courts.

To many people, $145,100 represents an enormous annual salary. But to a federal judge, it represents a fraction of what he or she could make in private practice. The pay rates of judges — and whether the federal government is offering competitive salaries and attracting the best candidates to the bench — has become a pressing issue in legal circles. Supreme Court Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist declared that it is "the most pressing issue facing the federal judiciary today."

On January 13, the American Bar Association and the Federal Bar Association issued a report stating that inflation has so eroded real income for federal judges that some are opting to leave the bench before they become eligible for retirement, and some promising candidates who are not financially independent are less likely to seek appointment to the federal bench.

Federal judges got cost-of-living raises in January of this year and last year. The report from the ABA and FBA contends that because judges received only one other such raise since 1993, the value of their salaries dropped by 13 percent in the past eight years. Federal trial judges are paid $145,100 a year, appellate judges $153,900, associate Supreme Court justices $178,300 and the chief justice $186,300. Under current law, federal judges may also make up to $21,000 a year for teaching.

The ABA and FBA are calling for a 9.6 percent pay raise to account for what the judges see as five missed cost-of-living increases granted to other government employees since 1993. The raise for nearly 1,700 judges across the federal courts would total about $22 million.

The reason Federal Judges did not receive the same cost-of-living pay raises some other government employees got between 1993 and 2000 is that Congress voted against their raises, arguing judges' are already paid enough.

Federal judges lost a battle in their fight for cost-of-living salary increases Friday when an appellate court reversed a lower court ruling that judges were entitled to pay increases that had been denied by Congress. Twenty appellate and trial judges sued the government in 1998, arguing that a 1989 pay-raise statute provided automatic pay increases for judges. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled Congress acted within its rights when it blocked cost-of-living salary adjustments for federal judges.

Attorney Kevin Forde, who represents the judges, plans to appeal the case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary. That would put the Supreme Court Justices in the awkward position of determining whether they were entitled to cost-of-living raises under the statute.

Rehnquist has already publicly stated that he agrees with the lawyers' organizations that a boost in federal judges' salaries is needed.

But judicial pay raises face considerable opposition in Congress, primarily because judicial salaries are still well above the median income of most Americans, even at the peak of the recent economic boom. When Robert J. Giuffra Jr., a partner in the New York-based Sullivan & Cromwell, argued for a judicial pay raise in The New York Times, several lawyers wrote in to rebuke the argument.

"Competition with absurdly high compensation at the big firms is not the only way to ensure a high-quality judiciary," wrote Mark Scherzer, another New York lawyer. "For many highly skilled, experienced lawyers in legal services, public-interest and government work, even current judicial salaries would constitute a major pay increase. A greater representation of their less corporate perspectives on the bench might be healthy for the federal judicial system."

Jonathan M. Freiman, a lawyer based in New Haven, Connecticut, wondered if the clamor for increased pay might tarnish the image of federal judges — particularly coming on the heels of the controversial Supreme Court decision that ended the Florida recount process.

"For most lawyers, the chance to serve justice -- and one's country -- is worth a pretty penny," Freiman wrote. "The pay is still far more than what the median American family earns, and the job offers life tenure. Those who would trade serving justice for the continuing pursuit of lottery-like incomes do not value justice richly enough, and are therefore unsuited for the job."

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has offered a proposal that would repeal a 1989 ban on judges' accepting outside honoraria for speaking engagements. That provision died in the closing days of the 106th Congress, amid charges it would create an appearance that judges could be unduly influenced by the groups that paid them to speak.

Pay Them What They're Worth	Public Service Shouldn't Lead To Wealth