Federal Court Lets Congressional Pay Lawsuit Move Forward

A federal court ruled last month that a lawsuit by current and former members of Congress seeking higher pay and back pay can proceed, New York Post reported. The plaintiffs allege that Congress violated the 27th Amendment by repeatedly canceling cost-of-living adjustments through repeal of a 1989 law.

If successful, taxpayers would owe at least $69 million to make lawmakers whole, according to an estimate by the National Taxpayers Union.

Congressional pay has remained fixed at $174,000 per year for nearly two decades, with the last adjustment occurring in 2009. Rep. ), one of the plaintiffs, said at an appropriations hearing last month that colleagues from both parties had asked for years whether the pay issue could be fixed.

Ken Cuccinelli, the attorney for the plaintiffs, stated that the goal is to stop continual violations of the Constitution regarding congressional pay and noted that inflation-adjusted pay is the lowest since 1954. The class-action plaintiffs include Reps. ), along with former Reps.

). Federal Claims Court Judge Eric Bruggink asked both sides to address the number of potential recipients in filings due later this summer. Individual lawmakers could receive between $225,000 and $420,000 in damages.

A win could also trigger automatic annual salary increases, raising pay above $253,000 per year, a 45 percent increase. Former members could then seek higher pensions through the Office of Personnel Management. Since the 27th Amendment was ratified in 1992, Congress has rejected its own pay raises 21 times.

Judge Bruggink wrote that laws varying congressional compensation are ineffective if they seek to change pay before an election intervenes. Demian Brady of the National Taxpayers Union Foundation urged the lawmakers to drop the case, arguing that they should seek higher pay by convincing colleagues to vote for it rather than suing taxpayers.