Judicial pensions an issue across the nation

April 3, 2012

In states as divergent as New Hampshire, New Jersey and Idaho, judicial pensions keep cropping up in state courts and legislatures. In New Hampshire last week, the Supreme Court agreed with seven judges who challenged a change to the state pension law from 2005. The judges had already won the case in the Superior Court, decided by Judge Kenneth C. Brown, which stated the change to pensions was unconstitutional since judges had already been serving in the position. Put another way, the day these judges took office their employment contract guaranteed specific benefits come retirement. The case was actually appealed to the high court by the seven judges who won the earlier case. Those judges wanted to be sure that the court correctly calculated the amount of benefits received by state judges in accordance with raises they received in 2003 and 2005. That part of the ruling must be reaffirmed by the Superior Court.

Judgepedia has covered the pension situation unfolding in New Jersey since last October, when Judge Linda R. Feinberg found the Governor Christie's pension contribution increase for judges violated the state constitution. Now the issue is before the New Jersey Supreme Court. In last week's hearing on the topic, the court seemed divided as to how it would decide. The main issue in the state is whether judicial "salaries" referenced in the law also include "compensation".

In both of these situations, it is clear that judges hearing the cases have an undeniable conflict of interest, since any decision they make will also affect their own pensions. In New Jersey, Chief Justice Stuart Rabner recused himself from the case because of his previous lobbying of the Christie administration over the matter.

Meanwhile, the Idaho State Legislature is proactively attempting to avoid a challenge with its new pension plan. Last week the Idaho House of Representatives passed a bill raising court fees and retirement contributions from judges simultaneously to patch a $14 million hole in the retirement fund. Judges must contribute 50% more to their retirement plans, while the public will pay an extra $8 per civil filing. The measure passed the house by 48-22 and is expected to pass in the Senate as well.

Related news

• NJ Supreme Court fastracks pension lawsuit, November 28, 2011
• Pension quagmire pits Christie against judges, October 21, 2011