James Clyburn

As the nation prepares to celebrate the 250th anniversary of independence, Americans are reflecting on the principles that shaped the republic: representative government, accountability to taxpayers and a skepticism of the self-interest too often exhibited by those in public office.

Those values are at the center of a little-known lawsuit working its way through federal court.

South Carolina Congressman Jim Clyburn is a plaintiff in a lawsuit brought by a handful of current and former Democratic and Republican lawmakers suing taxpayers for retroactive pay hikes. They argue that repeated congressional votes to block automatic cost-of-living adjustments violated the 27th Amendment.

Since 2009, Congress has repeatedly voted to block salary increases for its members. Those votes reflected a bipartisan recognition that lawmakers should exercise restraint, particularly during periods of budget deficits, economic uncertainty or public concern about government spending.

Now, unable to persuade their colleagues or the public that they deserve higher pay, some lawmakers are attempting an end run around the legislative process.

If successful, this misguided lawsuit could result in substantial back pay awards for current and former members of Congress. It could also lead to significantly higher congressional pension obligations, which are based on members’ salary levels.

These costs, potentially tens of millions to hundreds of millions of dollars, would ultimately be borne by taxpayers, on top of the nearly $40 trillion debt that lawmakers have piled up through decades of irresponsible overspending.

The 27th Amendment itself emerged from public anger over congressional compensation. Originally proposed by James Madison in 1789 and finally ratified in 1992, the amendment ensures that lawmakers cannot immediately vote to line their own pockets without an intervening election.

Most Americans do not view members of Congress as underpaid victims of an unconstitutional system. They see federal lawmakers struggling to perform basic functions such as passing appropriations bills on time while piling on more debt to future generations.

Against that backdrop, Clyburn’s lawsuit seeking retroactive pay raises is an affront to taxpayers.

The irony is that South Carolina’s congressional delegation also includes a lawmaker advancing a dramatically different approach.

Rep. Ralph Norman has introduced legislation to eliminate automatic congressional cost-of-living adjustments altogether. Rather than relying on an annual mechanism that quietly increases salaries unless Congress intervenes, Norman’s proposal would require lawmakers to openly debate and vote on compensation changes.

Reasonable people can disagree about the appropriate level of congressional pay. Some policy experts argue that higher compensation can help attract qualified candidates and reduce incentives for lawmakers to focus on future private-sector opportunities. Others believe congressional salaries should remain frozen until Congress demonstrates greater fiscal responsibility.

But regardless of where one stands on that debate, compensation decisions should occur through the legislative process rather than through litigation seeking retroactive payments.

The 27th Amendment was born from concerns about public trust. Any interpretation that results in taxpayers being compelled to provide decades of retroactive compensation to members of Congress risks undermining that same trust.

Clyburn and his friends are seeking damages because of congressional votes that blocked automatic pay increases. But taxpayers would have to pay for this alleged harm. Any award of retroactive compensation and higher pension benefits would ultimately be financed through additional federal borrowing, adding to the considerable national debt.

Clyburn’s lawsuit also risks further damaging Congress’ already low standing with the public by reinforcing the perception that lawmakers are more concerned with their own compensation than the nation's fiscal challenges.