Should upset taxpayers write to congressmen asking that a federal judge's salary be reduced because that judge has financially burdened their school district with his court ruling?

Independence of the Courts

Suppose that a U.S. District Judge has ruled that a Michigan school district has violated a student's free speech rights by suspending him for posting death threats against other students on the internet. Suppose that taxpayers in that district believed that the school district had acted properly in suspending the student in order to prevent a potential incident like the tragedy at Columbine High School. Suppose that these taxpayers are now upset that the school must pay $75,000 to the suspended student. Also suppose that this group wants to write to their congresspersons and urge them to reduce that judge's salary by requiring him or her to pay the $75,OOO back to the school district. In my opinion, it would be wrong for the taxpayer group to ask Congress to reduce the judge's salary.

Requiring the judge to pay is wrong because Article III, Section I of the Constitution states that, "[t]he Judges, both of the Supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their office during good behavior, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office." The judge made the ruling in this case based on what he believed the law required. He was, therefore, acting on good behavior in deciding that the school district violated the student's right of free speech. The judge should not be penalized.

Our government is based on the idea of a balance of power between three equal branches of government - the executive branch, the legislative branch, and the judicial branch. The purpose of Article III, Section I is to make sure that the judicial branch is independent of the other two branches. If Congress were able to punish a judge because they disagreed with the outcome in a given case, the threat of that punishment could influence the judge's decisions. If Congress could make that threat, then our judiciary would not be truly independent

The principles behind Article III, Section I are discussed in the case of Evans v. Gore, 253 U.S. 245(1920). In that case, the Supreme Court said that the purpose of this section of the Constitution is not to help the judges. Rather, it is "to promote the public weal by giving [the judges] that independence which makes for an impartial and courageous discharge of the judicial function." Id. at 249.

The Separation of Powers, a core democratic value, also supports my opinion. The Separation of Powers means that "legislative, executive and judicial powers should be exercised by different institutions in order to maintain the limitations placed upon them." That applies to this situation because the taxpayers would be asking another branch of government to penalize the judge for his decision, thereby exercising a form of control over the judge.

On the one hand, I believe that the taxpayers have the right to contact their congresspersons, because this, too, is free speech. However, the result they are urging - a reduction in a judge's salary - is not permitted by the Constitution and is not consistent with core democratic values.