Supreme Court of the United States
United States v. Hatter, Judge, United States District Court for the Central District of California
May 21, 2001532 U.S. 557
Summary
The Court held that the Compensation Clause does not prohibit nondiscriminatory taxes like Medicare on federal judges, overruling Evans v. Gore on that point. However, the specific Social Security tax scheme singled out judges for unfavorable treatment, violating the Clause. The Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. Justices Scalia and Thomas concurred in part and dissented in part, arguing the Medicare tax also violated the Clause.
Holding
- Whether the Compensation Clause forbids nondiscriminatory taxes on judicial salaries.. The Compensation Clause does not forbid Congress to enact a law imposing a nondiscriminatory tax upon judges, whether those judges were appointed before or after the tax law in question was enacted or took effect.
- Whether the 1983 Social Security tax law violated the Compensation Clause.. The 1983 Social Security tax law discriminates against the Judicial Branch, in violation of the Compensation Clause, as it singled out sitting judges for unfavorable treatment.
- Whether subsequent salary increases cured the Compensation Clause violation.. Later statutory salary increases did not cure the preceding unconstitutional diminution of compensation.
Docket 99-1978
Cited authorities
- 26 U.S.C. §§ 3121
- 26 U.S.C. §§3101
- 26 U.S.C. §§ 3121
- 26 U.S.C. §§ 3121
- 42 U.S.C. §§410
- 42 U.S.C. §§ 410
- 28 U.S.C. §§ 2401
- 28 U.S.C. § 2501