Booth v. United States Amidon v. Same
| Decision Date | 05 February 1934 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 656 and 657,s. 656 and 657 |
| Citation | 291 U.S. 339,78 L.Ed. 836,54 S.Ct. 379 |
| Parties | BOOTH v. UNITED STATES. AMIDON v. SAME |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. William D. Mitchell, of New York City, and John Spalding Flannery, of Washington, D.C., for Booth and Amidon.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 339-341 intentionally omitted] The Attorney General and Mr. Frank J.Wideman, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the United States.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 341-346 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Court of Claims has certified two questions:
'1. Does a United States District or Circuit Judge who, having served continuously for ten years and attained the age of seventy years, does not resign but retires under the provisions of section 260 of the Judicial Code, as amended, continue in office within the meaning of section 1 of article III of the Constitution which forbids diminution of the compensation of Judges during their continuance in office?
We are informed by the certificate in No. 656 that Wilbur F. Booth was appointed United States Circuit Judge for the Eighth Judicial Circuit on March 18, 1925, and qualified March 27, 1925. For many years prior to and up to the time of this appointment he had held the office of judge of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, and on November 28, 1931, he had served continuously as District or Circuit Judge for more than seventeen years. January 1, 1932, having attained the age of seventy, he retired, pursuant to the provisions of section 260 of the Judicial Code as amended (28 USCA § 375). Since his retirement he has continued to perform the duties of a retired United States Circuit Judge in the manner provided by law, and has participated in the hearing and decision of many cases pending in the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
At the time of Judge Booth's appointment as Circuit Judge, the annual compensation was fixed by law at $8,500 per annum, and was subsequently increased to $12,500 per annum, at which figure it stood when he retired. By section 13 of the Independent Offices Appropriation Act of June 16, 1933 (Public No. 78), it was provided: 'For the period of the fiscal year ending June 30, 1933, remaining after the date of the enactment of this Act, and during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1934, the retired pay of judges (whose compensation, prior to retirement or resignation, could not, under the Constitution, have been diminished) is reduced by 15 per centum.'
By reason of this act the plaintiff was paid during the period from June 15, 1933, to October 1, 1933, at the rate of $10,625 per annum. The amount withheld from him during that period was $697.93. He duly protested against the reduction, and brought suit in the Court of Claims, asserting that the act violates the provision of the Constitution which forbids diminution of the compensation of federal judges during their continuance in office. The government demurred to the petition.
The relevant facts certified in No. 657 are that Charles F. Amidon was appointed Judge of the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota on February 18, 1897, and qualified on February 27, 1897. From the date last mentioned to June 2, 1928, he served continuously in that capacity. Having attained the age of seventy years he retired June 2, 1928, pursuant to section 260 of the Judicial Code as amended, and has ever since continued to perform the duties of a retired United States District Judge in the manner required by law, and has, as conditions permitted and the business of the court demanded, performed judicial acts as such retired judge.
At the date of his appointment the salary of the office was fixed by law at the rate of $5,000 per annum. It has been increased from time to time and at the date of plaintiff's retirement was at the rate of $10,000 per annum. Pursuant to section 13 of the Independent Offices Appropriation Act, supra, he received, during the period from June 15, 1933, to October 31, 1933, compensation at the rate of $8,500 per annum. He protested against the reduction and brought suit in the Court of Claims to recover the sum of $558.34, the amount withheld during the period mentioned. The government demurred to the petition.
The pertinent portion of section 1 of article 3 of the Constitution is: 'The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.'
1. The first question asks, in effect, whether a United States Judge, upon retirement, relinquishes or retains his office. The answer is to be found in the act of Congress authorizing retirement.1 That act provides for resigna- tion and for retirement. In referring to the former it uses the expression 'When any judge * * * resigns his office * * *,' and provides for continuance of compensation after resignation. In contrast it declares, 'But instead of resigning, any judge * * * who is qualified to resign under the foregoing provisions, may retire, upon the salary of which he is then in receipt, from regular active service on the bench, * * *' not, be it noted, from office. The retiring judge may be called upon by the senior circuit judge to perform judicial duties in his own circuit or by the Chief Justice to perform them in another circuit, and be authorized to perform such as he may be willing to undertake. There is provision for appointment by the President of an additional judge for the circuit or district court where a sitting judge is found unable efficiently to discharge all his duties by reason of mental or physical infirmity of a permanent character. In that case the sitting judge unquestionably retains his office; and it is significant that the act declares either a retired judge, or one whose mental or physical condition has caused the President to appoint an additional judge, shall be treated as junior to the remaining judges of the court.
By retiring pursuant to the statute a judge does not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
US v. Smith, 87-CR-374.
...v. Marathon Pipe Line, 458 U.S. 50, 58-59, 102 S.Ct. 2858, 2864-2865, 73 L.Ed.2d 598 (1982). And see Booth v. United States, 291 U.S. 339, 350, 54 S.Ct. 379, 381, 78 L.Ed.2d 836 (1934) (`judicial acts would be illegal unless he who performed them held the office of Against this the commissi......
-
Glidden Company v. Zdanok Lurk v. United States
...Customs and Patent Appeals are courts created under Article III, their judges including retired judges, Booth v. United States, 291 U.S. 339, 350—351, 54 S.Ct. 379, 380—381, 78 L.Ed. 836—are and have been constitutionally protected in tenure and compensation. Our conclusion, it should be no......
-
Honulik v. Town of Greenwich
... ... 657 ... periods when it was vacant); Lowell v. United States, 141 Ct.Cl. 111, 158 F.Supp. 704, 707-708 (1958) ... holding or serving in a permanent rank and at the same time performing active duty in a different temporary rank" ... 15 Cf. Booth v ... 293 Conn. 678 ... United States, 291 U.S. 339, ... ...
-
Porter v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
...longer perform judicial service. ‘Judicial acts would be illegal unless he who performed them held the office of judge.‘ Booth v. United States, 291 U.S. 339, 350 (1933). 7 Salary of the office means the salary paid to judges in regular active service on the court from which an article III ......
-
Federal Judicial Independence: Constitutional and Political Perspectives - Martin H. Redish
...Id. 35. Id. 36. See discussion supra part iii.c.2, iii.c.3. 37. See Smith v. Oregon, 494 U.S. 872 (1990). 38. Cf. Booth v. United States, 291 U.S. 339 (1934) (provision of federal statute specifically reducing pensions of federal judges held unconstitutional). 39. See discussion supra part ......