Skip to content

ADVOCATETANMOY LAW LIBRARY

Research & Library Database

Primary Menu
  • News
  • Opinion
  • Countries198
    • National Constitutions: History, Purpose, and Key Aspects
  • Judgment
  • Book
  • Legal Brief
    • Legal Eagal
  • LearnToday
  • HLJ
    • Supreme Court Case Notes
    • Daily Digest
  • Sarvarthapedia
    • Sarvarthapedia (Core Areas)
    • Systemic-and-systematic
    • Volume One
06/04/2026
  • Law

Salary of the judges of the USA

These salary levels reflect two separate adjustments that both became effective on January 1, 1991: a 25 percent increase provided to judges and other senior government officials by the Ethics Reform Act of 1989, Pub. L. No. 101-194, ยง 703, 103 Stat. 1716, 1768; and a 3.6 percent cost-of-living adjustment for the 1991 fiscal year.
advtanmoy 27/09/2020 3 minutes read

ยฉ Advocatetanmoy Law Library

  • Share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
  • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram
USA, America

Home ยป Law Library Updates ยป Sarvarthapedia ยป Law ยป Salary of the judges of the USA

Judicial Compensation in USA

Article III of the Constitution governs the appointment, tenure, and payment of Supreme Court justices, and federal circuit and district judges. These judges, often referred to as โ€œArticle III judges,โ€ are nominated by the president and confirmed by the U.S. Senate.

Yearly Compensation

Read Next

  • ย Judicial office is essentially a public trust: Supreme Court
  • Disclosure of Personal Information under the Right to Information Act, 2005
  • Supreme Court Daily Digest (26th Jan 2026)

YearDistrict JudgesCircuit JudgesAssociate JusticesChief Justice
2019$210,900$223,700$258,900$270,700
2018$208,000$220,600$255,300$267,000
2017$205,100$217,600$251,800$263,300
2016$203,100$215,400$249,300$260,700
2015$201,100$213,300$246,800$258,100
20141$199,100$211,200$244,400$255,500
2013$174,000$184,500$213,900$223,500
2012$174,000$184,500$213,900$223,500
2011$174,000$184,500$213,900$223,500
2010$174,000$184,500$213,900$223,500
2009$174,000$184,500$213,900$223,500
2008$169,300$179,500$208,100$217,400
2007$165,200$175,100$203,000$212,100
2006$165,200$175,100$203,000$212,100
2005$162,100$171,800$199,200$208,100
2004$158,100$167,600$194,300$203,000
2003$154,700$164,000$190,100$198,600
2002$150,000$159,100$184,400$192,600
2001$145,100$153,900$178,300$186,300
2000$141,300$149,900$173,600$181,400
1999$136,700$145,000$167,900$175,400
1998$136,700$145,000$167,900$175,400
1997$133,600$141,700$164,100$171,500
1996$133,600$141,700$164,100$171,500
1995$133,600$141,700$164,100$171,500
1994$133,600$141,700$164,100$171,500
1993$133,600$141,700$164,100$171,500
1992$129,500$137,300$159,000$166,200
19912$125,100$132,700$153,600$160,600
1990$96,600$102,500$118,600$124,000
1989$89,500$95,000$110,000$115,000
1988$89,500$95,000$110,000$115,000
19873$89,500$95,000$110,000$115,000
1986$78,700$83,200$104,100$108,400
1985$78,700$83,200$104,100$108,400
1984$76,000$80,400$100,600$104,700
1983$73,100$77,300$96,700$100,700
1982$73,100$77,300$96,700$100,700
1981$70,300$74,300$93,000$96,800
1980$67,100$70,900$88,700$92,400
19794$61,500$65,000$81,300$84,700
1978$54,500$57,500$72,000$75,000
19775$54,500$57,500$72,000$75,000
19766$44,000$46,800$66,000$68,700
1975$42,000$44,600$63,000$65,600
1974$40,000$42,500$60,000$62,500
1973$40,000$42,500$60,000$62,500
1972$40,000$42,500$60,000$62,500
1971$40,000$42,500$60,000$62,500
1970$40,000$42,500$60,000$62,500
19697$40,000$42,500$60,000$62,500
1968$30,000$33,000$39,500$40,000

Explanatory Notes

Unless otherwise indicated, all increases were the result of annual salary adjustments, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. ยงยง 5, 44(d), 135, and/or 461.

1ย These salary levels reflect two separate adjustments.ย ย Beer v. United States,ย 696 F.3d 1174 (Fed. Cir. 2012),ย cert. denied,ย 133 S.Ct. 1997, held that the denial of certain cost-of-living adjustments for judges was an unconstitutional deprivation of judicial compensation in violation of the Compensation Clause and that a 2001 amendment that barred judges from receiving additional compensation except as Congress specifically authorized did not override the provisions of the Ethics Reform Act of 1989, Pub. L. No. 101-194.ย  In an order filed on December 10, 2013, inย Barker v. United States,ย No. 12-826 (Fed. Cl. filed Nov. 30, 2012), this holding was applied to other Article III judges, effective that date. ย As directed by these decisions, the salaries were reset to include the missed adjustments, resulting in the salaries of circuit judges set at $209,100, district judges at $197,100, the Chief Justice at $253,000 and the Associate Justices at $242,000. ย These salary levels were then further adjusted by the one percent cost-of-living adjustment provided to nearly all federal government employees and officials, in accordance with Executive Order No. 13655 (Dec. 23, 2013), effective January 1, 2014.

2 These salary levels reflect two separate adjustments that both became effective on January 1, 1991: a 25 percent increase provided to judges and other senior government officials by the Ethics Reform Act of 1989, Pub. L. No. 101-194, ยง 703, 103 Stat. 1716, 1768; and a 3.6 percent cost-of-living adjustment for the 1991 fiscal year.

3 These salary levels reflect two separate adjustments. First, Public Law Number 99-500, ยง 406, provided a three percent cost-of-living adjustment for the Judiciary as of January 1, 1987, bringing the salaries of circuit judges to $85,700, district judges (and other top government officials) to $81,100, the Chief Justice to $111,700, and the salaries of the Associate Justices to $107,200. Then on January 5, 1987, President Reagan recommended to Congress further adjustment for justices, judges, and other executive level officers under the Federal Salary Act of 1967, as amended, 2 U.S.C. ยง 358, to the rates shown. These rates became effective March 1, 1987, following Congressional failure to effectively disapprove them.

Read Next

  • ย Judicial office is essentially a public trust: Supreme Court
  • Disclosure of Personal Information under the Right to Information Act, 2005
  • Supreme Court Daily Digest (26th Jan 2026)

4 United States v. Will, 449 U.S. 200 (1980), held that 1979 legislation violated the Compensation Clause of Article III in denying judges joint implementation of annual cost-of-living adjustments in 1978 and 1979.

5 These salary levels reflect varying percentage increases proposed and implemented under the Quadrennial Commission process, effective March 1, 1977.

6 Implementation of the 1976 annual cost-of-living adjustment, pursuant to United States v. Will, supra, holding that retroactive cancellation of the 1976 adjustment violated the Compensation Clause of Article III.

Read Next

  • ย Judicial office is essentially a public trust: Supreme Court
  • Disclosure of Personal Information under the Right to Information Act, 2005
  • Supreme Court Daily Digest (26th Jan 2026)

7ย These salary levels reflect varying percentage increases proposed and implemented under the Quadrennial Commission process, effective March 1, 1969.


Post navigation

Previous: Landmarks judgments passed by US Supreme Court
Next: Judicial Conference and national policy for the federal courts in USA
Communism
Sarvarthapedia

Manifesto of the Communist Party 1848: History, Context, and Core Concepts

Arrest
Sarvarthapedia

Latin Maxims in Criminal Law: Meaning, Usage, and Courtroom Application

Abolition of Slave Trade Act 1807: Facts, Enforcement, and Historical Context

British Slavery and the Church of England: History, Theology, and the Codrington Estates

United States of America: History, Government, Economy, and Global Power

Biblical Basis for Slavery: Old and New Testament Laws, Narratives, and Interpretations

Rule of Law vs Rule by Law and Rule for Law: History, Meaning, and Global Evolution

IPS Cadre Strength 2025: State-wise Authorised Strength

Uric Acid: From 18th Century Discovery to Modern Medical Science

Christian Approaches to Interfaith Dialogue: Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant, and Pentecostal Views

Origin of Central Banking in India: From Hastings to RBI and the History of Preparatory Years (1773โ€“1934)

Howrah District Environment Plan: Waste Management, Water Quality & Wetland Conservation

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023: Sections (1-358), Punishments, and Legal Framework

Bengali Food Culture: History, Traditions, and Class Influences

  • Sarvarthapedia

  • Delhi Law Digest

  • Howrah Law Journal

  • Amit Aryaย vs Kamlesh Kumari:ย Doctrine of merger
  • David Vs. Kuruppampady: SLP against rejecting review by HC (2020)
  • Nazim & Ors. v. State of Uttarakhand (2025 INSC 1184)
  • Geeta v. Ajay: Expense for daughter`s marriage allowed in favour of the wife
  • Ram v. Sukhram: Tribal women’s right in ancestral property [2025] 8 SCR 272
  • Naresh vs Aarti: Cheque Bouncing Complaint Filed by POA (02/01/2025)
  • Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (BNSS)
  • Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023 (BSA): Indian Rules for Evidence
  • Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023
  • The Code of Civil Procedure (CPC)
  • Supreme Court Daily Digest
  • U.S. Supreme Court Orders
  • U.k. Supreme Court Orders
United Kingdom, UK

Abolition of Slave Trade Act 1807: Facts, Enforcement, and Historical Context

British Slavery and the Church of England: History, Theology, and the Codrington Estates

British Slavery and the Church of England: History, Theology, and the Codrington Estates

USA, America

United States of America: History, Government, Economy, and Global Power

Biblical Basis for Slavery, english slave trade

Biblical Basis for Slavery: Old and New Testament Laws, Narratives, and Interpretations

2026 ยฉ Advocatetanmoy Law Library

  • About
  • Global Index
  • Judicial Examinations
  • Indian Statutes
  • Glossary
  • Legal Eagle
  • Subject Guide
  • Journal
  • SCCN
  • Constitutions
  • Legal Brief (SC)
  • MCQs (Indian Laws)
  • Sarvarthapedia (Articles)
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • FAQs
  • Library Updates