There is a difference. Inflation nibbling away at a judge's salary has been ruled not an unconstitutional diminishment. Ditto a tax that applies to everyone.Paul wrote:Pikers. A couple of years ago, the Illinois Supreme Court decided that failure to give them a cost of living adjustment violated the state's constitutional prohibition against reducing their salaries.As I remember there was a case or cases that a group of Federal Judges did sue that they were exempt from the tax imposed upon their income due to the fact that it effectively lowered their compensation which was specifically prohibited.
The IL case was different. There was an existing statute that said the judges and justices would get a COLA. However, in 2003, the Governor line item vetoed the implementing appropriation. The IL Supreme Court held that was a diminishment: no backsies.
The Compensation Review Board determined in 1990 that judge salaries should include COLAs, which were to be annually adjusted. The General Assembly suspended the COLAs implemented by Senate Joint Resolution 192. This was deemed a violation of Ill. Const. art. VI, § 14 and was remedied by new legislation for COLA payments in 2003. The Governor signed a reduction veto to the COLA-authorizing legislation for 2004 in order to prevent the COLA from being implemented, as well as a veto of the bill for 2003 COLAs. The Comptroller was ordered to make the payments upon the court's finding that the veto was unconstitutional, however, he refused. A class action by judges was brought against them. The trial court found that the elimination of the COLAs was unconstitutional, and it ordered payment to the class of judges. On appeal, the court found that the COLAs were fully vested since 1990 and accordingly, efforts to prevent receipt of them violated Ill. Const. art. VI, § 14. Accordingly, 2001 Ill. Laws 607 was invalid, as was the reduction veto. A defense of legislative immunity was inapplicable. The judiciary had authority to compel payment without a specific appropriation.