The Commonwealth Court stated that Article V, Section 1 of the state constitution creating a “unified judicial system” did not necessitate absolute uniformity in judicial pay. Judge Wojcik noted, “Judicial pensions for different judges have never been completely identical.”
No Clear Reduction in Benefits
Furthermore, the judges challenging the changes argued that the amendment violated Article V, Section 16(a), which prohibits cutting judicial salaries. However, the Commonwealth Court disagreed, asserting that the retirement changes were not a clear reduction in benefits.
Judge Wojcik elaborated, “At this stage, it is entirely unclear whether the 2017 amendment diminishes the compensation of any judge…The changes made reflect a change in who assumes the risk and the gain of market fluctuation.”
Pennsylvania Judges’ Retirement Plan : A Wider Impact
Notably, previous retirement plan amendments had specific categories for judiciary employees. Still, the 2017 amendment applied to all state employees, including judges, underscoring its broader implications.
