A federal lawsuit involving current and former members of Congress could lead to one of the largest congressional salary increases in decades, with American taxpayers potentially responsible for millions of dollars in back pay.
The case recently moved forward after a federal judge ruled that lawmakers’ constitutional challenge over congressional pay can proceed. If the plaintiffs ultimately prevail, members of Congress could receive substantial retroactive payments while also becoming eligible for automatic annual salary increases in the future.
The legal challenge centers on the 27th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The lawmakers contend that Congress ran afoul of the amendment by repeatedly suspending automatic cost-of-living increases created under a 1989 law intended to ensure congressional salaries kept pace with inflation.
According to estimates from the National Taxpayers Union, taxpayers could be required to cover at least $69 million in back pay if the lawsuit succeeds. The total cost could increase depending on how the court determines damages and who qualifies for compensation.
Members of Congress have earned a base salary of $174,000 per year since 2009. Although lawmakers have consistently rejected automatic pay increases, some have argued that inflation has significantly reduced the purchasing power of their salaries over the past 17 years.
Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, one of the plaintiffs, recently acknowledged that lawmakers from both political parties have privately discussed addressing congressional pay for years.
The lawsuit is being led by attorney Ken Cuccinelli, who previously served as Virginia’s attorney general and later held senior positions during President Donald Trump’s first administration.
Cuccinelli says the case is about enforcing the Constitution rather than simply increasing congressional salaries. He argues that, when adjusted for inflation, congressional pay has fallen to its lowest level in decades.
Current Representatives Steny Hoyer, Rick Crawford of Arkansas, and James Clyburn of South Carolina joined former Representatives Rodney Davis of Illinois and Ed Perlmutter of Colorado in filing the class-action lawsuit.
Several key issues still need to be resolved before the lawsuit can move toward a final decision. Federal Claims Court Judge Eric Bruggink has directed both parties to file additional briefs later this year outlining how many current and former lawmakers may be eligible for compensation and the method the court should use to determine any financial awards.
Individual back-pay awards could reportedly range from approximately $225,000 to more than $420,000 for eligible lawmakers.
Beyond retroactive payments, the lawsuit could also restore automatic annual cost-of-living adjustments for members of Congress.
Some estimates suggest congressional salaries could eventually rise to more than $253,000 per year, representing an increase of roughly 45 percent over current pay levels.
Former lawmakers could also seek higher federal pension benefits based on the increased salaries, potentially adding even more long-term costs for taxpayers.
Critics of the lawsuit argue that Congress should address its own compensation through legislation rather than asking the courts to intervene.
Demian Brady, vice president of research at the National Taxpayers Union Foundation, said lawmakers who believe they deserve higher salaries should openly vote for a pay raise instead of pursuing taxpayers through litigation.
Brady also warned that a favorable court ruling could increase federal spending, expand future pension obligations, and further damage public confidence in Congress.
Supporters of higher congressional pay point out that many lawmakers maintain two residences—one in their home district and another in Washington, D.C., one of the nation’s most expensive housing markets.
The last time members of Congress received a pay increase was in 2009, when their annual salary rose from $169,300 to $174,000.
Since the ratification of the 27th Amendment in 1992, Congress has repeatedly voted to block automatic pay increases, rejecting them more than 20 times.
The lawmakers bringing the lawsuit argue those repeated votes violate the Constitution because the 27th Amendment states that any law changing congressional compensation cannot take effect until after an election for the House of Representatives has occurred.
Judge Bruggink agreed that the constitutional question deserves further review, ruling that laws affecting congressional compensation cannot take effect before the required election has taken place.
The case will now continue through the federal court system, where its outcome could have significant financial consequences for both current and former members of Congress—and for the taxpayers who would ultimately be responsible for funding any court-ordered payments.
As the legal battle unfolds, the decision could reshape how congressional pay is handled in the future while renewing debate over government spending, taxpayer accountability, and the constitutional limits on lawmakers setting their own compensation.