A handful of current and former members of Congress are suing for retroactive salary increases. Last week, an opinion by the presiding judge let the case proceed into a more consequential phase, raising serious concerns about the costs to taxpayers and further damage to Congress’s already low public standing.
The lawsuit, brought by Reps. Jim Clyburn (D-SC), Rick Crawford (R-AR), and Steny Hoyer (D-MD), along with former Reps. Rodney Davis (R-IL), Tom Davis (R-VA), Ed Perlmutter (D-CO), and former Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL), argues that repeated votes to block automatic congressional cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) violated the 27th Amendment.
Last week, Judge Eric Bruggink issued a summary ruling that largely sided with the plaintiffs on several constitutional questions. The judge concluded that:
Members of Congress have standing to bring the lawsuit;
The 27th Amendment can apply to laws that reduce or block congressional pay adjustments;
Laws preventing automatic COLAs may constitute laws “varying” congressional compensation; and
Blocking a COLA before an intervening election may be constitutionally ineffective for that period.
Several other issues in the case remain unresolved and will be considered in forthcoming hearings that are expected to be scheduled toward the end of June. These topics include determining which specific votes are allegedly in violation of the 27th Amendment, how to resolve timing of implementation of the laws that froze salary, and calculation of the damages. Additionally, in an earlier ruling, the judge limited claims back to 2018, but the new ruling leaves the door open to possibly allowing for damages prior to 2018.
It must be noted that the real damages resulting from this ill-advised lawsuit would ultimately be imposed on taxpayers. NTUF estimates that, if the ruling stands, taxpayers could face $69 million in retroactive salary hikes for claims dating back to 2018 in this class action lawsuit. This figure could grow significantly higher if plaintiffs are permitted to look further back when calculating damages. Since 2009, votes to freeze congressional salaries have saved taxpayers more than $600 million in avoided salary costs.
The long-term liabilities could grow substantially larger if current and former members seek recalculations of their congressional pensions based on the higher retroactive salary levels. Congressional pensions are calculated using a formula based on years of service and a member’s highest three-year average salary. In the most recent analysis from the Congressional Research Service, the two pension programs available to lawmakers cost $38 million in 2022. Retroactive pay increases for current and former lawmakers could result in larger pension annuities paid out over many years at taxpayer expense.
Any retroactive compensation or pension increases would also add to federal borrowing and debt-service costs at a time when interest payments on the national debt are already among the fastest-growing categories of federal spending.
The lawsuit also threatens further damage to Congress’s public reputation at a time when trust in the institution is already near historic lows. The perception will likely be that politicians are attempting to line their own pockets at the expense of taxpayers while the federal government continues running massive deficits, accumulating record debt, and struggling to address persistent problems such as improper payments and wasteful spending.
Although the plaintiffs argue that congressional salaries are necessary to ensure that “ordinary citizens from all walks of life could serve, and not be beholden to outside interests,” many taxpayers are likely to remain skeptical that lawmakers are underpaid. The current salary for rank-and-file representatives and senators—$174,000 annually—is nearly three times higher than American’s median full-time salary of $64,220, according to an April 2026 report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
The timing could hardly be worse. Congress has already faced growing public scrutiny following disclosures about taxpayer-funded harassment settlement payments involving members, along with the recent resignations of several representatives amid allegations of serious misconduct or corruption. Against that backdrop, litigation seeking retroactive raises risks reinforcing public perceptions that Congress is more focused on protecting its own financial interests than addressing the country’s fiscal challenges.
The plaintiffs should withdraw the lawsuit. Whatever the legal merits of the case, the real damages resulting from this lawsuit would ultimately fall on taxpayers while further eroding public confidence in Congress.
Congress can also inform the judiciary regarding the intent of the 27th Amendment. As James Madison himself recognized when drafting the amendment, its purpose was to prevent members of Congress from enriching themselves through immediate pay increases, not to prohibit lawmakers from exercising restraint by declining raises. Through resolutions, the House and Senate should clarify that votes to reject pay increases are not inconsistent with the text and purpose of the amendment.
Lawmakers should also revisit broader reforms to congressional compensation, including legislation introduced by Rep. Ralph Norman (R-SC) as H.R. 7628 to repeal automatic COLAs for members of Congress entirely rather than repeatedly relying on temporary pay freezes. In a statement about his reform, Norman noted:
Automatic pay increases for Members of Congress risk widening the gap between elected officials and the working Americans they represent. They are fiscally irresponsible and prioritize self-interest over public service. These actions expose a system that too often rewards tenure instead of performance.
At a time of mounting debt and declining public trust, this lawsuit is an affront to taxpayers. Lawmakers should demonstrate fiscal responsibility rather than litigate for retroactive raises that burden the citizens they were elected to serve.