A federal court has finally weighed in on the sensitive topic of congressional member pay. The ruling is a significant victory for a bipartisan group of past and current lawmakers who have been seeking back pay for years of missed salary increases. Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, one of the plaintiffs, could be entitled to a $420,000 payout under the lawsuit.
But members of Congress should not expect a raise anytime soon — if ever.
The U.S. Court of Federal Claims ruled that lawmakers acted improperly in repeatedly canceling cost-of-living adjustments. Judge Eric Bruggink wrote that those votes run afoul of the 27th Amendment, which says any adjustment to congressional pay cannot apply until after an intervening election.
The ruling was preliminary. The litigation will continue for months, if not years. And even if the legal battle is won, the political war is far from over.
The $174,000 Problem
Congress has repeatedly voted to overrule a 1989 law meant to keep member salaries apace with inflation, keeping their yearly pay fixed at $174,000. Lawmakers have voted to deny themselves an automatic cost-of-living adjustment over 20 times, including every year since 2009. The reason is simple: voting yourself a raise is political poison.
“The American people, they’re working hard, and their wages have just not caught up,” said Rep. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut, the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee. “We shouldn’t be taking care of ourselves and not helping the American people.”
That sentiment is widely shared across the aisle. Even after nearly two decades of stagnation, House members make nearly $100,000 more than the median American household. The optics of giving themselves a raise, even a modest one, are terrible.
But the plaintiffs in the lawsuit have long argued that the low pay is itself a problem. They say congressional pay simply isn’t high enough to compete with private-sector opportunities for high-achieving Americans. The result, they argue, is a Congress that is either wealthy enough not to need the salary or desperate enough to seek outside income in ethically questionable ways.
The Irony of the Ruling
“There’s some irony in the idea that maybe what’s going to finally make this happen is Congress turning to an entire other branch of the government to do something that they themselves could choose to do, and in fact have decided not to,” said Molly Reynolds, a Brookings Institution fellow who specializes in congressional matters.
That is the core of the story. Congress could have given itself a raise at any time. It chose not to. Now the courts may force the issue — or at least force a reckoning.
The House remains on track with legislation that yet again would block a cost-of-living adjustment for fiscal 2027. The Appropriations panel took up the annual bill dealing with congressional salaries on the same day Bruggink’s opinion was published. Hoyer brought up the court opinion during the panel’s debate, advising members that they should expect a final ruling soon. House Appropriations Chair Tom Cole of Oklahoma cast doubt on any immediate impact. “We don’t know anything really about the opinion yet,” Cole cautioned.
The Back Pay Question
If the plaintiffs ultimately prevail, the question becomes: how much are they owed? Bruggink said multiple questions still must be litigated, including whether the past COLA cancellations are entirely void or simply delayed in their effect. Plaintiffs have previously argued that someone like Hoyer, who has served continuously since the COLA law went into effect, is owed as much as $420,000.
“I wouldn’t expect members of Congress to see their next paycheck go up,” said Daniel Schuman, executive director of the nonpartisan American Governance Institute. “What this court is dealing with is the lawsuit for back pay.”
That means a scenario where current and former lawmakers could receive large lump-sum checks for missed raises, even while continuing to block future cost-of-living adjustments. The politics of that would be extraordinary. Members of Congress cashing six-figure back-pay checks while insisting they cannot vote themselves a raise going forward would be a public relations disaster.
The Political Cover Theory
Eventually, the opinion could give lawmakers just enough legal cover to allow themselves a pay bump. Already this term, the push for a modest raise picked up some momentum as other anti-corruption efforts, such as a congressional stock-trading ban, gained traction.
Speaker Mike Johnson suggested last year that it would be easier for Congress to rally around the stock-trading ban if members made more money. “I don’t think we should have any appearance of impropriety here,” he said. “But the other side of it, some people say: Well, look, the salary of Congress has been frozen since 2009. When you adjust for inflation, a member of Congress is making 31 percent less today than they made in that year. It goes down every year. Over time, if you stay on this trajectory, you’re going to have less qualified people who are willing to make the extreme sacrifice to run for Congress.”
A December 2024 appropriations package would have made lawmakers eligible for a 3.8 percent pay increase, or about $6,600. At the height of his cost-cutting fervor, Elon Musk torpedoed the effort — only to later support the adjustment on X as a measure that “might make sense.”
The Bottom Line
A federal judge ruled that Congress acted unconstitutionally by repeatedly blocking its own cost-of-living adjustments. The ruling is a victory for a bipartisan group of lawmakers seeking back pay, with Rep. Steny Hoyer potentially owed as much as $420,000. But the litigation will continue for months or years. The House is still moving forward with legislation to block the 2027 COLA. And members remain terrified of the political backlash from giving themselves a raise.
Congress won a battle to increase its pay. The war will go on. And the most likely outcome is that nothing changes — except perhaps a few large back-pay checks for lawmakers who are already leaving office.
