A federal court ruling challenging Congress’ repeated rejection of automatic cost-of-living increases could reopen the politically explosive debate over lawmaker salaries, inflation, and public trust in Washington.
In a preliminary opinion that could reshape congressional compensation policy, U.S. Court of Federal Claims Judge Eric Bruggink ruled that lawmakers may have violated the Constitution by repeatedly blocking automatic cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) tied to congressional salaries.
The case centers on a 1989 federal law designed to allow congressional pay to rise gradually with inflation unless lawmakers explicitly voted otherwise. Since 2009, however, Congress has repeatedly blocked those increases amid fears of political backlash from voters frustrated with Washington dysfunction and economic inequality.
Judge Bruggink’s ruling argues that Congress’ repeated votes to stop the automatic raises may conflict with the Twenty-seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, which prohibits changes to congressional compensation from taking effect until after an intervening election.
The opinion marks a major legal victory for a bipartisan coalition of current and former lawmakers seeking compensation for missed salary increases dating back years.
Among the plaintiffs is Steny Hoyer, who argued the ruling confirms that Congress’ long-running practice was unconstitutional.
Legal analysts say the decision could eventually expose the federal government to substantial retroactive compensation claims from lawmakers who served during the frozen-pay period. Some estimates suggest longtime members could potentially be owed hundreds of thousands of dollars in delayed compensation.
