A state Superior Court judge today ruled that the state law enacted in June requiring judges to pay more toward their pensions and health benefits violates the New Jersey Constitution, which doesn't allow for judges' salaries to be reduced during their term.
Superior Court Judge Linda Feinberg, the assignment judge for the Mercer County vicinage, said in a 59-page decision that detailed the history of similar circumstances in other states that deductions from a judge's paycheck for pensions and health benefits directly relate to the amount of salary a judge is paid.
"Quite simply, the salaries of New Jersey justices and judges during their term of appointment may not be diminished in any way for any purpose," Feinberg wrote.
"Clearly, plaintiff’s salary is being diminished – not by a tax imposed on all citizens of the state of New Jersey, but by legislative action that mandates higher pension and health care contributions in contravention of the Constitution of the state of New Jersey," Feinberg wrote." While the recently enacted legislation may be a response to the present economic conditions, nonetheless, it does not amend, nullify or otherwise negate the mandate of the New Jersey Constitution."
Regarding health benefits, Feinberg said the state constitution requires that judges "must be provided with the same or comparable level of benefits, at the same cost, during their terms of appointment in the absence of an increase in salary."
Gov. Chris Christie blasted Feinberg individually.
“This outrageous, self-serving decision, where a judge is protecting her own pocketbook and those of her colleagues, is why the public has grown to have such little faith in the objectivity of the judiciary," said Christie, in a prepared statement.
"These political appointees, who are the most lavishly paid public workers, with the richest lifetime benefits, have now had one of their own rule that they are above the law and should be treated preferentially," Christie said. "We trust that the Supreme Court will reverse this ridiculous decision and find that judges should have to pay their fair share, just like every other public employee.”
Feinberg acknowledged that she -- and all judges -- would be affected by the outcome of the case. Because all judges could be disqualified, the court heard the case under what's called the "rule of necessity."
Superior Court Judge Paul M. DePascale, of Hudson County, filed suit in Mercer County in July. The law requires all public employees, not just judges, to pay more toward their pensions and health benefits. The ruling affects the law as it related to judges, not the entire legislation.
DePascale's lawsuit said the prohibition against reducing a judge's salary is intended to ensure the judiciary remains an independent branch of state government. It sought a declaration that the new benefits law is unconstitutional as applied to state judges and immediate restoration of any increased pension contributions.
"The court appropriately enforced the constitutional mandate that the salary of the justices of the Supreme Court and judges of the Superior Court shall not be diminished during their term of appointment," said Justin Walder, the attorney representing DePascale.
Specifically, the law would raise the contribution rate for Judicial Retirement System members, currently 3 percent, by an additional 9 percent of salary over seven years beginning in October and required judges to pay 35 percent of their health-premium costs within four years.
DePascale, 62, a Superior Court judge since 1991, currently makes $165,000 a year. In court papers, he said his pension contribution would increase from $3,287.44 in 2011 to $18,137.38 in 2017. He also said that a judge's contribution toward health care costs could more than double to $5,230.86.
Christie's office says a judge contributes less than 10 percent of the actual cost of his or her pension, while other state employees provide around half. Retiring judges have an average pension benefit of $107,540 a year off an average lifetime contribution of $59,300, meaning a retiree would recover his or her contribution in less than seven months, the Governor's Office says.
The state Office of the Attorney General argued that the state constitution protects salaries, which weren't diminished, but that other compensation and benefits aren't protected. The state likened the deductions to taxes.
Past increases of pension and health-care contributions, such as in 1982, 1996 and 2007, were paired with pay increases for judges that offset the financial impact.
