Members of Congress may be eligible for a pay increase following a preliminary opinion from U.S. Court of Federal Claims Judge Eric Bruggink. The judge stated that Congress's repeated rejection of the cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) rule, which has kept their salaries fixed at $174,000 since 2009, may violate the 27th Amendment. This amendment prohibits any changes to congressional salaries from taking effect until after an intervening election.
Currently, many lawmakers are hesitant to vote for salary increases due to public perception, especially as many Americans face wage stagnation. The median U.S. household income is approximately $80,000. Bruggink's opinion is preliminary, and any salary changes would likely require further legal proceedings.
Some lawmakers, including Rep. Steny Hoyer, have argued that congressional salaries should increase with inflation, citing that current pay levels are inadequate. The question of whether lawmakers should receive back pay for the years without salary increases is also under consideration, with estimates suggesting Hoyer could be owed up to $420,000.
Experts, including Daniel Schuman from the American Governance Institute, suggest that immediate salary increases are unlikely, as the court is primarily addressing the issue of back pay. Rep. Rosa DeLauro expressed concerns about the optics of lawmakers voting for pay raises amid economic challenges faced by the public. House Speaker Mike Johnson defended the current salary structure, noting that congressional salaries have not kept pace with inflation since 2009, which could deter qualified candidates from running for office.