Depascale v. State
211 N.J. 40
| N.J. | 2012Background
- June 28, 2011: Chapter 78 increases pension and health care contributions for all public employees, including sitting justices and judges.
- Chapter 78 bill is challenged under the No-Diminution Clause: salaries shall not be diminished during a judge’s term (Article VI, §6, Paragraph 6).
- Historically, New Jersey paired judicial contribution increases with corresponding salary increases to avoid any net take-home pay reduction; this pattern is central to the constitutional challenge.
- Plaintiff DePascale filed July 21, 2011 seeking a declaration Chapter 78 diminishes judicial salaries; trial court held unconstitutional as applied to sitting justices/judges; State appealed.
- The Court addresses whether Chapter 78’s effects amount to a constitutional diminution of salaries, considering constitutional text, history, and federal precedent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Chapter 78 diminish judicial salaries during a term? | DePascale argues yes, it reduces take-home pay during the term. | State contends no diminution because it is a pension/health contribution, not salary. | Yes, Chapter 78 diminishes salaries as applied to sitting judges. |
| Can the Legislature impose higher pension/health contributions on sitting judges via indirect means without violating the No-Diminution Clause? | Diminution occurs regardless of phrasing; indirect reductions still violate the Clause. | Contributions via benefits are permissible if not reducing stated salary. | No, indirect reductions can violate the No-Diminution Clause; direct or indirect impact is actionable. |
| Should extrinsic sources (historical convention records) guide the interpretation of the No-Diminution Clause here? | Constitutional history supports a broad protection of judicial independence. | Extrinsic history should not override plain text and current interpretation. | Extrinsic history does not justify upholding Chapter 78; the Clause prohibits diminution. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Hatter, 532 U.S. 557 (U.S. 2001) (no nondiscriminatory indirect reductions to judges' salaries are allowed; independence concerns)
- United States v. Will, 449 U.S. 200 (U.S. 1981) (vested salary increases cannot be repealed to diminish judicial pay)
- Evans v. Gore, 253 U.S. 245 (U.S. 1920) (original rule on compensation and independence origins; later limited by Hatter)
- Stilp v. Pennsylvania, 905 A.2d 918 (Pa. 2006) (state court applying no-diminution to judicial pay adjustments)
- Jorgensen v. Blagojevich, 285 Ill. Dec. 165, 811 N.E.2d 652 (Ill. 2004) (state court invalidated diminution of judicial pay adjustments)
- Hearth Admins., Corp v. City of New York, 394 F.3d 382 (2d Cir. 2012) (example of public policy arguments in related contexts)
- Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts, Inc., 160 N.J. 505, 734 A.2d 1160 (N.J. 1999) (principles on constitutional interpretation and deference to legislative policy)