Federal Judges Sue to Win Promised Pay Increases With the nation teetering on an economic "fiscal cliff," federal judges may soon force Congress to dedicate possibly millions of dollars to what some of those same judges must consider a worthy cause: their own salaries. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in October ordered Congress to pay six federal judges years of back pay. Now a group of federal judges is pushing a class-action lawsuit to ensure all of the rest of the federal judges who also missed out on their cost-of-living increases get what they feel is their due. It's a touchy subject: One set of federal judges asking another set to essentially approve salary increases for everyone. Though, of course, Congress also ultimately controls its own salaries. Congress in 1989 limited federal judges' ability to earn money outside of their work on the bench and in exchange provided what was supposed to be automatic cost-of-living increases to judicial salaries to ensure inflation wouldn't erode the value of those salaries over time. U.S. District Judge Royal Furgeson Jr. of Texas, one of the judges seeking class-action status, called that a "binding commitment" made by the legislative branch for the judicial branch to "receive the same yearly COLAs awarded to all other federal employees, to keep us even with inflation." This undated handout photo provided by Judge Royal T. Furgeson Jr. show Judge Furgeson of Texas. With the nation teetering on a fiscal cliff, Congress may be on the verge of being forced by federal judges to dedicate perhaps millions of dollars to what some of those same judges must consider a worthy cause: their own salaries. Furgeson is one of the judges seeking class action status, called that a "binding commitment" made by the legislative branch for the judicial branch to "receive the same yearly COLAs awarded to all other federal employees, to keep us even with inflation." (AP Photo/Judge Furgeson) Close But instead of following through, Congress withheld those cost-of-living increases in 1995, 1996, 1997, 1999, 2007 and 2010, while giving other federal employees their promised increases. "In our view, the exclusion is contrary to the commitment to us, so we have sued to enforce it," said Furgeson, a senior judge who also serves as the president of the Federal Judges Association. The Constitution, the judges say, is on their side. The Constitution says compensation for federal judges "shall not be diminished during their continuance in office," so the judges say denying them a promised cost-of-living increase violates the Constitution's Compensation Clause. And now a federal appeals court is on their side. "Congress' acts in 1995, 1996, 1997 and 1999 constitute unconstitutional diminishments of judicial compensation," the appeals court said in its October order, adding that money also was due that had been withheld in 2007 and 2010. As relief, appellants are entitled to monetary damages for the diminished amounts they would have been paid if Congress had not withheld the salary adjustments. However, the appeals court's decision only applied to those judges who sued in the Beer v. United States case, so Furgeson and another group of judges are trying to get a class-action lawsuit approved so they can get the missed salary adjustments for more than 1,000 other current and former federal judges who court papers say would have been eligible. Their success will depend on whether the Beer decision holds up if challenged at the Supreme Court. So far, the Justice Department has not yet decided whether to appeal the federal circuit court's ruling to the Supreme Court, a spokeswoman said. The entire federal bench would benefit from the success of a class-action lawsuit, which would include "all persons who are serving or who served as United States judges under Article III of the Constitution."