Federal Judges V-Compensation-Implied Repeal of

B-261589 Mar 06, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights A law that bars pay increases for federal judges and justices except as specifically authorized by Congress was not impliedly repealed by a subsequent act amending the method by which automatic annual pay adjustments are to be calculated for judicial branch employees. Repeals by implication are strongly disfavored and may be found only where Congress' intent to repeal is clear and manifest. 95 Stat. 1183 was impliedly repealed by the Ethics Reform Act of 1989. Officers and magistrates in the judicial branch were subject to annual cost-of-living adjustments as provided by 28 U.S.C. This section essentially granted individuals whose salaries were subject to adjustments by that section the same percentage salary increase authorized for general schedule employees. View Decision Matter of: Federal Judges V-Compensation-Implied Repeal of Appropriations Rider Limitation on Pay Increases File: B-261589 Date: March 6, 1996 A law that bars pay increases for federal judges and justices except as specifically authorized by Congress was not impliedly repealed by a subsequent act amending the method by which automatic annual pay adjustments are to be calculated for judicial branch employees. Repeals by implication are strongly disfavored and may be found only where Congress' intent to repeal is clear and manifest. DECISION The Honorable Barefoot Sanders, United States Circuit Judge, [1] asks whether a limitation on pay increases included in section 140 of the Continuing Resolution Act of December 15, 1981, Pub. L. No. 97-92, 95 Stat. 1183 was impliedly repealed by the Ethics Reform Act of 1989, Pub. L. No. 101-194, 103 Stat. 1716. [2] We think not. BACKGROUND Before Congress adopted section 140, salaries for justices, judges, officers and magistrates in the judicial branch were subject to annual cost-of-living adjustments as provided by 28 U.S.C. Sec. 461. This section essentially granted individuals whose salaries were subject to adjustments by that section the same percentage salary increase authorized for general schedule employees, which generally took effect with the first pay period of each fiscal year. Because justices and judges have a monthly pay period, their increases under this plan took effective at midnight on October 1. In 1976, Congress attempted to repeal the automatic cost-of-living adjustments for senior executives, including justices and judges. However, the bill was not signed into law until sometime during the day of October 1, 1976. In United States v. Will, 449 U.S. 200 (1980), the Supreme Court held that, since the justices' and judges' salary increases already had taken effect at the beginning of the day, the attempted repeal of the scheduled salary increase "diminished" their pay in violation of Article III of the Constitution. Thus, federal justices and judges kept the automatic salary increases that were denied to executives in the other branches of government. To prevent these so-called "backdoor" increases, Congress passed section 140 in 1981, which provides, in part, that "none of the funds appropriated by this joint resolution or by any other act shall be obligated or expended to increase, after the date of enactment of this joint resolution, any salary of any federal judge or justice of the Supreme Court, except as may be specifically authorized by act of Congress hereafter enacted . . . ." We have had several occasions to interpret section 140. In Federal Judges, 62 Comp.Gen. 54 (1982), we concluded that section 140, although included in an annual appropriation bill, nonetheless had sufficient words of futurity to constitute permanent legislation, thus effectively exempting justices and judges from the automatic salary increases in the absence of a specific authorization by Congress. Subsequently, we considered separate acts of Congress to determine whether they met this requirement, finding in one case that it did, Federal Judges II, 62 Comp. Gen. 358 (1983), and in one case that it did not, Federal Judges III, 63 Comp.Gen. 141 (1983). We reexamined our initial determination that section 140 constituted permanent legislation in Federal Judges IV, 65 Comp.Gen. 552 (1986), and reached the same result. We also noted in that case our doubt that Congress intended to deny federal justices and judges the same salary adjustments granted to other federal employees. We urged the Congress to clarify the situation by repealing section 140 and amending the statutes governing judicial pay to prevent backdoor increases by delaying the effective date of the pay increase for judges until 30 days following the effective date of pay increases for other high-level officials, but making the justices' and judges' pay increases retroactive to that effective date. Id. at 357.