The Twenty-Seventh Amendment and Congressional Compensation Part 5: Scope of the Amendment

The Twenty-Seventh Amendment and Congressional Compensation Part 5: Scope of the Amendment

Legal Sidebari

The Twenty-Seventh Amendment and
Congressional Compensation Part 5: Scope of
the Amendment
March 14, 2023
This Legal Sidebar post is the fifth in a six-part series that discusses the Twenty-Seventh Amendment to
the Constitution, which prevents laws that modify Members of Congress’s compensation from taking
effect until after an intervening congressional election. During the 117th Congress, the Sergeant at Arms
fined three Members of the House of Representatives for entering the House Chamber without wearing
masks during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Members declined to wear masks to protest a House
resolution and policy requiring them to do so. Because the fines were deducted from their salaries without
an intervening House election, the Members challenged the mask policy in federal court as a violation of
the Twenty-Seventh Amendment. In Massie v. Pelosi, a D.C. federal district court judge dismissed the
Members’ complaint, determining that the mask policy was consistent with the Twenty-Seventh
Amendment because the disciplinary fines did not modify the Members’ annual salaries designated in the
Ethics Reform Act of 1989. (In August 2022, a federal judge dismissed a similar challenge to fines for
violating rules on security screening.)
As a result of these federal district court decisions, which have been appealed to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, Congress may be interested in the history and scope of the most recently
ratified amendment to the Constitution. Additional information on this topic is published in the
Constitution Annotated: Analysis and Interpretation of the U.S. Constitution.
Scope of the Twenty-Seventh Amendment
The Supreme Court has not decided any cases interpreting the Twenty-Seventh Amendment. However, in
1994, one federal court of appeals panel rejected a Twenty-Seventh Amendment challenge to
congressional pay legislation. In Boehner v. Anderson, Representative John Boehner contended that
various provisions in the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 violated the Twenty-Seventh Amendment. These
provisions automatically adjust salaries and pensions for Members of Congress each year to account for
increases in the cost of living unless Congress declines the adjustment. Boehner argued, among other
things, that half of the annual adjustments (i.e., those taking effect in odd-numbered years) were “laws”
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
LSB10934
CRS Legal Sidebar
Prepared for Members and
Committees of Congress

Congressional Research Service
2
that would modify pay for Members of Congress without an intervening election, violating the Twenty-
Seventh Amendment.
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals held that the cost-of-living adjustment mechanism did not violate the
Twenty-Seventh Amendment. Assuming, without deciding, that the Amendment applied to a law enacted
before the Amendment’s ratification in 1992, the court determined that the Ethics Reform Act of 1989
“did not cause any adjustment to congressional compensation until after the election of 1990 and the
seating of the new Congress.” Thus, the court determined that the relevant “law” for purposes of the
Twenty-Seventh Amendment was the Ethics Reform Act provision, enacted in 1989, rather than each
subsequent automatic, annual pay adjustment. Because the Act, enacted in the 101st Congress, had taken
effect after the seating of a new Congress on January 1, 1991, no Twenty-Seventh Amendment violation
had occurred.
Because of a lack of Supreme Court precedent, it is unclear whether various novel statutory mechanisms
for regulating Members’ pay might comply with the Twenty-Seventh Amendment. For example, in 2013,
Congress enacted the “No Budget, No Pay Act of 2013.” After a certain date, the Act would have
temporarily withheld the payment of Senators’ or Representatives’ salaries until a Member’s respective
house of Congress had agreed to “a concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2014 pursuant to
section 301 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.” In an effort to comply with the Twenty-Seventh
Amendment, the Act would have released the funds for Members’ salaries on the last day of the 113th
Congress if no budget resolution had been adopted in accordance with the Act’s terms. Because each
chamber passed a budget resolution prior to the Act’s deadline, Members’ pay was not withheld pursuant
to the Act. As a result, the law was never tested in court.
Click here to continue to Part 6.

Author Information

Brandon J. Murrill

Legislative Attorney

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff
to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of
Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of
information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role.
CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United
States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However,
as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the
permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

LSB10934 · VERSION 1 · NEW