Legal Opinion
United States v. Hatter
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided May 21, 2001No. 99-1978PublishedCited by 177 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Breyer
The Constitution’s Compensation Clause guarantees federal judges a “Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.” U. S. Const., Art. Ill, § 1. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that this Clause prevents the Government from collecting certain *561Medicare and Social Security taxes from a small number of federal judges who held office nearly 20 years ago — before Congress extended the taxes to federal employees in the early 1980’s.
In our view, the Clause does not prevent Congress from imposing a "non-diseriminatory tax laid generally” upon judges…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Assn. of United States, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Quern v. JordanSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Rodriguez De Quijas v. Shearson/American Express, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1989
- State Oil Co. v. KhanSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
- United States v. WillSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by177 opinions
- Kisor v. WilkieSupreme Court of the United States · 2019
- Patricia Hart v. Larry G. Massanari, Acting Commissioner of Social Security AdministrationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2001
- Bosse v. OklahomaSupreme Court of the United States · 2016
- United States v. Cecil Eugene CheekCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2005
- United States v. Rachel Lee PadgettCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2019
172 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.