No harm in Pa. pay raise, court rules

HARRISBURG - A panel of federal judges yesterday upheld a lower court decision dismissing claims that state lawmakers and top members of the judiciary conspired to enact the controversial 2005 pay raise.

Judges ruled that the plaintiffs in the case, led by Common Cause Pennsylvania and the League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania, failed to prove they had standing to bring the case to federal court.

In a 49-page ruling, the judges found that the plaintiffs failed to "identify an actual, concrete injury" and that claims in the case "are insufficient to allege more than a generalized, abstract grievance, shared by all Pennsylvania citizens."

In July 2005, lawmakers voted themselves and thousands of other state officials, including state judges, a large pay raise. The 2 a.m. vote drew intense public outrage that, four months later, forced the legislature to repeal the raises. However, the state Supreme Court later ruled that the pay raises for judges could not be repealed.

The suit, initially filed in October 2005 - a month before the pay raise was repealed - alleges that the plaintiffs' due-process and equal-protection rights were violated because the three branches of government improperly rushed to enact the law, preventing any public input.

It also alleged that then-State Supreme Court Chief Justice Ralph Cappy participated in secret meetings with top lawmakers and administration officials to push for the raises. Cappy, plaintiffs alleged, offered in exchange to render favorable decisions in several cases important to the legislature.

Cappy retired from the state's highest court in late 2007 and has forcefully denied the allegations.

In June 2006, Judge Yvette Kane of the U.S. Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania threw out the lawsuit, saying the case was a state matter that should have been handled in state courts, not on the federal level.

The case was appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. But the entire court later recused itself because Gov. Rendell, who signed the pay raise into law, was a defendant, and his wife, Marjorie O. Rendell, is a Third Circuit judge.

Instead, three judges from other circuits across the nation were brought in to hear the case in October.

John P. Krill, a Harrisburg lawyer who represented two former top Senate Republicans in the case, said yesterday that the judges fairly applied the law and resisted the temptation of exploring what he called "unfounded salacious" allegations.

"When you have all three branches of government accused of being in a conspiracy to deprive the citizens of their rights, well that's pretty sensational," Krill said.

Philadelphia lawyer Arlin M. Adams, who represented Cappy and the state Supreme Court in the case, also lauded the ruling.

"This lawsuit created a pall over the judicial system, and that's not healthy for the community," he said. "And I think this ruling goes a long way in dissipating that pall."

Barry Kauffman, executive director of Common Cause Pennsylvania, said he was disappointed with the decision.

"Clearly, we thought we had a strong case or we wouldn't have filed it in the first place," he said.

He said neither he nor Common Cause's lawyers had fully digested the ruling and that it was too early to say whether the group would pursue other legal avenues.