In the 1980 case United States v. Will et al., the Supreme Court ruled that Congress could not revoke previously authorized judicial salary increases once they had taken effect, due to Article III of the Constitution which prevents reduction in judge's compensation. The case arose when four federal judges sued for back pay after Congress passed two laws preventing cost-of-living adjustments from taking effect as scheduled under a 1975 law. The court held that once these raises took effect at the start of a new year, they became part of a judge’s compensation and couldn’t be reduced by later legislation. However, if Congress acted before such an increase took place (as it did with one out of three years in question), then no vested right was violated because there was no deprivation of earned compensation.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Will et al., Justice Powell, joined by Justices Brennan and Marshall, argued that Congress did not intend to block judicial salary increases when it passed legislation freezing federal pay. They believed that the majority misinterpreted the legislative history and intent behind these laws. The dissenters pointed out that historically, Congress has been careful to respect judicial independence by avoiding reductions in judges' salaries. They also noted a constitutional concern: if Congress could freeze or reduce judges' salaries at will, it would undermine the judiciary's independence from political pressures - a key principle of separation of powers underpinning American democracy.