The Judges Versus New York

Chief Judge Judith Kaye’s decision to file suit against the New York State Legislature in order to force a pay increase for New York’s judges has caused a revisiting of the debate on judicial compensation.

The judges, who have not received a pay raise since 1999, were again disappointed this week when none of the additional $6 billion approved by the legislature in this year’s budget was designated for a judicial pay increase. Bernard W. Nussbaum, who filed suit on behalf of the judges, claimed that the failure to provide a pay increase violated the constitution’s separation of powers in regards to the independence of the judiciary. He further argued that the denial of a pay increase had effectively lowered the salaries of current judges as their wages have lost value in the face of continued inflation.

While Nussbaum’s claim is supported by an alleged constitutional violation, the case
itself could also be problematic. According to Madison’s view on government, the government was designed in a way to ensure that each branch would serve as a check on the other two. This was particularly targeted towards the legislative branch, but the current issue of judicial compensation raises another question: when the judiciary directly challenges the legislature, who will serve as a check on the judiciary’s power?

It is understandable that judges, whose positions appear to have become less desirable as their salaries have become less competitive, would want a pay increase. However, their suit could pose a direct conflict of interest as their case is being brought before the courts. If no other state employees can both demand and authorize a personal salary increase then should judges be allowed to do so?