Pension quagmire pits Christie against judges

October 21, 2011

New Jersey: Earlier this week, Judge Linda R. Feinberg ruled that Governor Chris Christie's plan to increase pension and health benefits contributions from judges violated a section of the state Constitution. Specifically, Feinberg ruled that the increase violated Section VI of the New Jersey Constitution, which states: "The Justices of the Supreme Court and the Judges of the Superior Court shall receive for their services such salaries as may be provided by law, which shall not be diminished during the term of their appointment."

The case was originally brought by Judge Paul DePascale in July, after Christie approved the pension increase in June. The new contributions were supposed to take effect on October 14.

The governor disagrees with the ruling, believing that the prevision pertains exclusively to salaries but not fringe benefits. As befits his style, he has issued some strong words about Judge Feinberg, saying, "Judge Feinberg, in order to put more money in her pocket and the pocket of her cronies, has decided that the pension system being broken is fine by her, as long as she gets hers, and her colleagues get theirs."

Christie has also devised a new plan. Following the ruling, he unveiled the New Jersey Judicial Salary and Benefits Amendment, which he hopes the New Jersey Legislature will approve. Senate President Stephen Sweeney and Assembly Speaker Sheila Oliver, both Democrats, are reluctant to get involved, worried that the proposed measure sets a dangerous precedent.

As the case stands now, Governor Christie plans to appeal the ruling by Judge Feinberg.

See also

• News: Judicial pensions an issue across the nation, April 3, 2012
• News: NJ Supreme Court fastracks pension lawsuit, November 28, 2011