Congress Pay Lawsuit Could Cost Taxpayers Millions
WASHINGTON — A lengthy legal battle could lead to federal lawmakers securing thousands in back pay and hefty pay increases, potentially burdening taxpayers with millions in costs.
Last month, a federal court allowed a lawsuit by a group of current and former members of Congress to move forward, marking a significant step for the plaintiffs seeking to boost Congressional pay.
The lawmakers contend that Congress has breached the 27th Amendment by frequently reversing cost-of-living adjustments for their salaries, essentially undermining a 1989 law aimed at aligning lawmakers’ wages with inflation.
The National Taxpayers Union has projected that if the court rules in favor of the plaintiffs, taxpayers might be responsible for at least $69 million to compensate the members involved.
Despite concerns about public perception, lawmakers have maintained their annual salary at $174,000 for nearly 20 years. However, whispers of discontent regarding low compensation have surfaced.
Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), a former House majority leader and plaintiff in the case, expressed during a recent appropriations hearing that he has repeatedly heard calls from both sides of the aisle urging “Can’t we fix this?”
Ken Cuccinelli, an attorney representing the lawmakers, mentioned, “Our aim is to put an end to ongoing constitutional violations involving members’ pay.” He added that, based on policy, inflation-adjusted salaries for Congress have reached their lowest point since 1954.
Cuccinelli, a Republican and former Virginia attorney general, collaborated with Hoyer and colleagues Rep. Rick Crawford (R-Arkansas) and Rep. James Clyburn (D-South Carolina) in bringing forth the class action lawsuit. Former Rep. Rodney Davis (R-Ill.) and Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-Colorado) are also named plaintiffs.
The exact number of lawmakers eligible for refunds remains uncertain—an issue that Judge Eric Burgink of the Court of Federal Claims has asked both sides to clarify in filings set for later this summer.
Other matters still pending include the calculation of potential damages; compensation for individual lawmakers could range from $225,000 to $420,000.
A victory in this case could also ensure that lawmakers receive automatic annual salary increments, pushing their earnings beyond $253,000—a notable increase of about 45%.
Moreover, former Congress members could seek pension increases from the Federal Office of Personnel Management, adding further strain on taxpayers.
Demian Brady, VP of research at the National Taxpayers Union Foundation, argued that if lawmakers desire a raise, they should pursue it through their own votes instead of through a court ruling. “Given these troubling issues—like the impact on taxpayers through increased deficits and the reputational harm to Congress—I urge members to reconsider their approach,” he stated.
Supporters of higher pay for legislators point out that many must manage two residences: one in their district and another in Washington, D.C., which is notorious for its steep real estate prices.
The last raise for Congressional members took place in 2009, when their salary rose by 2.8% from $169,300 to the current figure.
Since the ratification of the 27th Amendment in 1992, Congress has vetoed its own pay increases 21 times. The plaintiffs allege this contradicts the 27th Amendment, which states that changes in Congressional compensation should only take effect following an election cycle.
Judge Burgink concurred that the amendment applies in this situation, noting in his opinion that any laws attempting to alter Congressional pay before an election intervention are ineffective.
