Panel refuses increasing judges' health benefit rates while N.J. appeals 'unconstitutional' ruling

A state appeals panel has refused to make judges pay more for health and pension benefits while the state appeals a lower court’s ruling that the increases are unconstitutional

Star-Ledger file photoState Superior Court Judge Linda Feinberg last month ruled making judges pay more for health and pension benefits violated the Constitution's ban on cutting pay for judges and justices.

TRENTON — A state appeals panel has refused to make judges pay more for health and pension benefits while the state appeals a lower court’s ruling that the increases are unconstitutional.

In a three-page order issued this afternoon, the three-judge panel said doing so could tamper with judicial independence.

“Judicial independence is not a meaningless catchphrase but the keystone of the third independent branch of government in our tripartite system of governance,” reads the order signed by Judge Philip Carchman.

State Superior Court Judge Linda Feinberg last month ruled making judges pay more for health and pension benefits violated the Constitution’s ban on cutting pay for judges and justices. After her ruling, she also refused to grant the Christie administration’s request to keep the increased health benefit and pension rates in place for judges. Christie appealed the initial decision, which has been fast-tracked to the state Supreme Court. The state asked Feinberg to issue a temporary stay during the appeal, which Feinberg denied.

Today’s order only applies to the state’s appeal of Feinberg’s decision on the stay – not the case itself, which is in the hands of the state Supreme Court.

“The public’s interest in maintaining a strong and independent judiciary is imperiled by any violation of (judicial independence), no matter how extensive and regardless of its duration,” Carchman wrote.

Related coverage:

• Judge fighting Christie's pension, health benefits asks N.J. Supreme Court to review case

• Judge nixes Christie request to have N.J. judges contribute more toward pensions and benefits

• Editorial: Courts should toss judge's lawsuit over health, pension benefits