Nebraska judges again likely to receive pay raises, consistent since 2005
Justices of the Nebraska Supreme Court (and when they were appointed), front row from left: Lindsey Miller-Lerman (1998), Chief Justice Jeffrey Funke (appointed 2016, elevated to chief 2024) and William Cassel (2012). Back row, from left: Jonathan Papik (2018), Stephanie Stacy (2015), John Freudenberg (2018) and Jason Bergevin (2025). (Courtesy of the Nebraska Supreme Court)
LINCOLN — As pay raises for Nebraska's constitutional officers and state lawmakers remain stagnant for decades, the state's 148 judges are once again likely to receive salary bumps over the next two fiscal years, as they've had for 31 of the past 36 years.
Nebraska judges have routinely gotten salary bumps since 2005, with annual July 1 increases in all but 2018. Even then, to make up for it, judges got two raises in 2019: Jan. 1 and July 1.
This year, Legislative Bill 513, from State Sen. Carolyn Bosn of Lincoln, as chair of the Legislature's Judiciary Committee, seeks to offer 1.5% salary raises in each of the next two fiscal years — on July 1 and again July 1, 2026. Under LB 513, which is one vote away from passing, the seven justices on the Nebraska Supreme Court would be paid $228,431.18 on July 1. This would rise to $231,857.65 on July 1, 2026.
Recent history of Nebraska judicial salaries
History of judicial, executive, legislative salaries
The increases would cost taxpayers about $1.5 million and leave the state with about $1.1 million in wiggle room for any other budget priorities for the next two years.
Remaining judges are paid a percentage of what Supreme Court justices are paid:
Court of Appeals (six judges): 95%, currently $213,802.58.
District Courts (58 judges): 92.5%, currently $208,176.20.
Separate Juvenile Courts (12 judges, Douglas, Lancaster and Sarpy Counties): 92.5%, currently $208,176.20.
Workers' Compensation Court (seven judges): 92.5%, currently $208,176.20.
County Courts (58 judges): 90%, currently $202,549.82.
Under state law, members of the Nebraska Tax Equalization and Review Commission also get salary and benefit increases when state judges do.
While largely a consensus issue, LB 513 has drawn pushback from mostly left-leaning senators who question the increases amid the state's ongoing budget woes and ask whether the funds should be diverted to other priorities.
The governor's staff, too, has noted judicial salaries are already nationally competitive. His line-item vetoes of other judicial branch spending remain unresolved.
State senators last got a salary increase, from $4,800 to $12,000, in January 1989, which is baked into the Nebraska Constitution and harder to change. Constitutional officers, such as the governor, attorney general and secretary of state, last got raises in 1991, 2003 and 2007. Legislative efforts to increase lawmaker or constitutional officer pay have likely stalled for the year.
Bosn, a former prosecutor, described the 'modest increase' in LB 513 as appropriate for the hardworking judiciary. She said that 1.5% raises are less than half what other state employees are getting in the next two-year state budget and about 1.2% of inflation for the Midwest for the past year.
Part of the importance, Bosn said, is in encouraging applications for a diverse judicial branch, as salaries for private attorneys can eclipse those of public servants. As a result, many applicants come from local county attorneys offices or the Nebraska Attorney General's Office.
'When you have a diverse group of individuals who are the judges, they can work together, they can have those conversations and try and come to the best solutions that benefit all of us,' Bosn said during debate on LB 513 earlier this month.
Tim Hruza, on behalf of the Nebraska State Bar Association, citing a State Bar Association study in 2022, told the Appropriations Committee in March that an average partner at a law firm makes about $250,000 for the experience he said one would hope to see in judicial applicants.
'We have great judges. We have quality candidates coming through,' Hruza told the Appropriations Committee. 'We want to see a more robust process where [more] people are applying for these and that we're getting great candidates.'
Nebraska Supreme Court Chief Justice Jeffrey Funke, who previously served as a county and district judge, told lawmakers this year that 'very rarely' will private attorneys apply because it is more 'financially lucrative' to remain a private attorney. He said LB 513 could help attract and retain good lawyers for the Nebraska judiciary.
Nebraska judges are retained every six years by a vote of the people divided in distinct judicial districts. Since the system was implemented in 1962, eight judges have been removed, including one justice. The last judge removed was in 2008. This means that, barring the very rare power of impeachment, judicial appointments can largely be for life, or until retirement.
Hruza and Funke were among a handful of supporters of the original LB 513 seeking 4% raises each of the next two years before it was pared back in April to annual 1.5% increases.
In 2023, lawmakers approved salary bumps of 6% on July 1, 2023, and 7% on July 1, 2024. Those raises brought Nebraska Supreme Court justices and judges on the Nebraska Court of Appeals above $200,000 in 2023, a feat that the remaining 135 judges surpassed in 2024.
While the consecutive pay bumps are noteworthy on their own, LB 513 is making waves by generating some of the most pushback similar bills have gotten in more than a decade. It's common for one or two senators to oppose the raises, but six senators opposed the salary increase in 2013, in a 41-6 vote. No senators voted against the 2023 raises, passing 40-0.
State Sens. Machaela Cavanaugh of Omaha, Danielle Conrad of Lincoln, Terrell McKinney of Omaha and Ashlei Spivey of Omaha are among those who argue that, given the state's structural budget concerns, judicial pay raises aren't a top priority.
'I think it sends the wrong message to use taxpayer dollars to have more significant raises for judges, who are fair-minded and work hard, but who are already making more than their peers in many instances,' Conrad, a civil rights attorney, said earlier this month.
Conrad noted that Nebraska judges' salaries are in the top 20 nationwide, and district judges are in the top 10. Funke shared those figures himself when he supported LB 513.
A spokesperson for Gov. Jim Pillen also noted the national rankings. Under questioning from Conrad, Bosn said she anticipates the governor would sign the pared-back version of LB 513. Pillen's office has declined to say publicly whether Pillen would sign or veto LB 513.
Passing LB 513 would follow Pillen's intended line-item veto of $12 million to the judicial branch. The vetoes are being ignored after legislative leaders last week said Pillen's office may have run afoul of the Nebraska Constitution and not have properly delivered the line-item vetoed bills in time to the Legislature. The matter could come under scrutiny in Nebraska courts.
'Every branch of government must contribute to balancing our state budget,' Pillen said last week in announcing his targeted budget vetoes.
Of LB 513, McKinney said he had a hard time justifying the increases while other court services, such as juvenile probation, were at risk without more funding.
Spivey said some state agencies under the governor have struggled to attract talent and while some requested budget increases to try to do so, the Appropriations Committee didn't fulfill every request. Similar to McKinney, she said it would be wiser to prioritize and invest in actual court services at this time.
'It doesn't mean that the judges are not important or that we can't look at competitive salaries,' Spivey said. 'It's just not the right time.'
Cavanaugh, who serves on the budget-writing Appropriations Committee with Spivey, said it was maybe the year to 'hit pause' amid the consecutive increases.
'We got to tighten our belts and suspenders or whatever article of clothing you want to quote,' Cavanaugh said during debate.
State Sen. Bob Hallstrom of Syracuse, an attorney, defended the increases. He said it's sometimes overlooked how much time judges put in, often away from their courthouses, 'pouring' over court files and weighing decisions that they know will affect peoples' lives.
State Sen. Rob Clements of Elmwood, chair of the Appropriations Committee, also supported the pared-back pay increases as a 'reasonable request.'
As lawmakers worked toward a balanced budget for the next two years, Clements sought to leave enough wiggle room with LB 513 in mind. He also helped protect salary and health insurance increases for other state employees across the three branches of government. Clements has said he expects LB 513 will pass.
Hallstrom, a freshman member of the Judiciary Committee, also cited those pay raises, up to 3.5% in some cases, as a reason LB 513 is needed.
'If it was my preference, I would prefer to treat judges in the same fashion,' Hallstrom said.
The increases to judges' salaries are considered annual appropriations bills, but unlike the mainline bills that the Appropriations Committee considers, the Judiciary Committee chair routinely introduces pay increases to be considered by their committee. That's a process left in place from the days of former State Sen. Ernie Chambers of Omaha.
State law requires that the governor have at least two candidates to choose from when filling a judicial vacancy. However, Funke and Bosn noted that sometimes there are only two qualified lawyers. In those cases, if one candidate is not forwarded on, the search process restarts.
Such a scenario happened around the Norfolk area in March for a district court judge who retired in January. Pillen named a successor May 14 after the delay.
Retired Lancaster County District Judge Rob Otte, past chair of the Nebraska State Bar Association's House of Delegates and current president of the Nebraska Lawyers Foundation, told the Judiciary Committee in February he took a pay cut when he became a judge.
Otte, who retired in 2022, said he thought a robust crop of candidates would vie for his seat. However, only three applicants came and none from private practice.
'Despite my personal calls and having coffee and lunch with more than two dozen private practicing lawyers, I could get not one to put their name in the hat to be a district court judge,' Otte said.
Otte said he often hears that judges' salaries should be compared to other government employees. He said that while he tends to agree, senators should 'decouple' that thinking and look at what's best for judges.
'You want the best, not the cheapest,' Otte said in February.
Lancaster County Judge Holly Parsley, president of the Nebraska County Judges Association, said county judges review arrest and search warrants at any time of the day and must handle the 'awesome responsibilities' of the position they have been entrusted with.
She looked to the guidance of former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer that 'the integrity, wisdom and independence of judges are the cornerstones of a just society.'
'Without good judges, the rule of law is but an empty promise,' Parsley said.
In a similar vein, Funke said, 'judges solve legal problems and disputes, both large and small, and do so with patience and grace.'
'Every case is important to someone, and every case is important to our judges,' he testified in February. 'There is no better investment you can make in the future of state government than investing in competitive salaries for the judiciary.'
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Boston Globe
3 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Southern Baptists to vote on effort to overturn same-sex marriage
Conservative Christian activists hope to build on their movement's success in overturning Roe v. Wade, the now-defunct Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion, in 2022, and to apply the legal and political strategies that proved effective for that victory. Public support for legal same-sex marriage remains high, with more than two-thirds of American adults supporting it. As with abortion, activists hope to gain political power despite their minority viewpoints. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up 'Christians are called to play the long game,' said Andrew T. Walker, an ethicist at a Southern Baptist seminary in Kentucky who wrote the resolution. He leads the Southern Baptist Convention's resolution committee, which coordinates proposals from Baptists around the country to be put for a vote at the annual meeting. Related : Advertisement 'There are burgeoning embryonic efforts being discussed at the legal-strategy level on how to begin to challenge Obergefell,' he said. 'How do we take the lessons from Roe that took 50 years? What is the legal strategy to overturn Obergefell at some point in the future?' Advertisement Activists are aware that their mission may take years. But the resolution calling for this concrete action shows 'a deepening of Southern Baptist thinking on this issue' and a recognition of the need for a long-term strategy similar to the one that ended a constitutional right to abortion, said R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He said 'there's a great deal of engagement' on this issue between Southern Baptist leaders and lawyers with the Alliance Defending Freedom, the Christian legal advocacy group that worked to overturn Roe. 'As in Roe, it is not just a matter of arguing for or against abortion,' he said. 'It is also the larger pattern in terms of constitutional interpretation.' Supporters of same-sex marriage celebrated outside the US Supreme Court following the ruling on same-sex marriage, on June 26, 2015. DOUG MILLS/NYT The Southern Baptist resolution, titled 'On Restoring Moral Clarity through God's Design for Gender, Marriage, and the Family,' reflects a movement within conservative Christianity to see that laws align with their set of Biblical values and a political commitment to pursue those goals. The resolution calls for overturning not just Obergefell, but also any laws and policies 'that defy God's design for marriage and family,' potentially including the Respect for Marriage Act, a law that former President Joe Biden signed in 2022 mandating federal recognition for same-sex marriages. The resolution also specifically calls for the restriction of commercial surrogacy. Related : Lawmakers have a duty 'to pass laws that reflect the truth of creation,' it says, 'and to oppose any law that denies or undermines what God has made plain through nature and Scripture.' The measure also reflects an alignment with other Republican goals, and calls for laws that would 'strengthen parental rights in education and healthcare, incentivize family formation in life-affirming ways, and ensure safety and fairness in female athletic competition.' Advertisement Couples waited to apply for marriage licenses at Cambridge City Hall on May 17, 2004. RUTH FREMSON/NYT To go into effect, the resolution needs to pass by simple majority vote. Organizers say it is widely expected to pass. Passing the measure could be used as evidence to prove to politicians that culturally unpopular positions have support. Public opinion on same-sex marriage shifted drastically over the past 30 years toward overwhelming support. Last summer during his presidential campaign, Donald Trump had the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman removed from the Republican Party platform. 'It now seems the case in many sectors of American society that same-sex marriage is just as American as baseball and apple pie,' Walker acknowledged. 'I understand the political will is probably minute or minuscule.' Related : Of the nine Supreme Court justices, only Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas have suggested that the court should reconsider Obergefell, which was decided by a 5-4 majority. Chief Justice John Roberts, now a swing vote, issued a strong dissent in the Obergefell ruling. In his concurring opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson, the case that overturned Roe, Thomas directly argued that the rationale the court used to negate a right to abortion should be used to overturn cases that established rights to same-sex marriage, consensual same-sex relations and contraception. Next month Mathew Staver, a Southern Baptist and the chair of the Liberty Counsel, a Christian legal group, plans to ask the Supreme Court to hear a case about Kim Davis, a former county clerk in Kentucky who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples in 2015. That request will directly ask the court to overturn Obergefell, he said. Staver has been trying for two decades to use the courts to stop same-sex marriage, ever since states began to legalize it in 2004. Advertisement Earlier this year his group worked with legislators in Idaho on the language of a resolution that passed the Idaho House of Representatives calling on the Supreme Court to reverse Obergefell. Republican lawmakers, at times drawing on certain Christian principles, introduced similar measures calling for Obergefell's reversal in states like Michigan, Montana and South Dakota, and partially passed them in North Dakota and Idaho. 'That begins to show a sentiment from legislative officials, and it just begins to build a momentum,' Staver said. And while efforts like the SBC measure and the resolutions in the states have been largely independent of each other, he said, 'that momentum results in more coordination' between ideologically aligned groups, which was effective in overturning Roe. The Southern Baptist Convention, a largely conservative network of churches, has taken a rightward turn in recent years, particularly on issues of marriage, family and sex. It has also struggled following revelations of widespread sexual abuse of women and children, and the mishandling of those allegations over decades. The annual meeting is often regarded as a bellwether for broader evangelical sentiment on various political and cultural issues, even though it technically represents the views of only the 10,000 or so members who typically attend and vote, not of all 13 million members. Last year, Southern Baptists voted to oppose the use of in vitro fertilization, passing a resolution that Walker and Mohler proposed as part of a push to advance the 'fetal personhood' movement. The vote greatly worried many other evangelicals who rely on fertility treatments to have children and who believe IVF is life-promoting. Advertisement In 2023, Southern Baptists decided to expel several churches with female pastors, including one of the denomination's largest and most prominent congregations. An attempt to further expand restrictions on women in church leadership gained traction in 2023 but did not pass a second required vote in 2024. That effort is expected to be revived this week. This article originally appeared in
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Trump's war against DEI isn't going so well in Virginia
Apparently when President Trump says 'illegal DEI,' he means lawful and common-sense efforts to integrate public schools. At least, that's the takeaway from the Department of Education's new investigation against Fairfax County Public Schools. Trump officials claim Fairfax County violated federal law when it adopted an admissions policy designed to 'change the demographic make up' of its most competitive high school. This theory, which equates integration with segregation, dates back to Barry Goldwater, who remarked in 1964 that 'the Constitution is color-blind … and so it is just as wrong to compel children to attend certain schools for the sake of so-called integration as for the sake of segregation.' It seems Trump agrees. Unfortunately for him, the Supreme Court does not. Just last year, the court declined to overturn a ruling for Fairfax County. As I explained at the time, that decision made sense. Even as the Supreme Court has shifted hard right, decades of conservative case law — including from Chief Justice John Roberts — condone racial goals such as diversity, equality and inclusion. The new investigation tracks Trump's disregard for courts and his tendency toward bluster over substance. But in important respects, it also exposes that Trump's war on DEI lacks any moral and legal basis. Some context is helpful. For decades, Black advocates sought to desegregate Thomas Jefferson High School, one of the nation's top-ranked public schools. As recently as 2012, the NAACP filed a civil rights complaint alleging that the school's admissions policies discriminated against African American and Hispanic students and students with disabilities. Things shifted in 2020. As racial justice protests erupted across the globe, local leaders grappled with the fact that in a county with roughly 100,000 Black residents, Thomas Jefferson High School admitted so few Black students that the number was too small to report. The state convened a task force to examine the causes of this ongoing exclusion at Thomas Jefferson and other Virginia schools. Following a series of hearings, the board revised the school's admissions process, eliminating a $100 application fee and a standardized testing requirement. Contrary to ongoing claims that the new policy compromised 'merit,' the board raised the minimum GPA for admission from 3.0 to 3.5 and added an honors course requirement. The new policy also implemented a holistic evaluation that included new 'experience factors,' such as whether the applicant qualified for reduced meals or is an English language learner. The updated process also ensured that each middle school receive a number of seats equal to 1.5 percent of its eighth-grade class. The school board resolved that '[t]he admission process must use only race-neutral methods that do not seek to achieve any specific racial or ethnic mix, balance or targets.' This means that admissions officials are not told the race, ethnicity, sex or name of any applicant. In Supreme Court parlance, the entire admissions process was 'colorblind.' The new process produced promising results. In its inaugural year, Thomas Jefferson High School received 1,000 more applicants than the prior cycle. This larger applicant pool also 'included markedly more low-income students, English-language learners, and girls than had prior classes at TJ.' Consistent with the heightened GPA requirement, the admitted class's mean GPA was higher than in the five preceding years. The new process also yielded greater racial diversity. Black students comprised 10 percent of the applicant pool and received nearly 8 percent of offers and Hispanic students comprised 11 percent of the applicant pool and received over 11 percent of offers. The overall percentage of Asian American students decreased from the preceding year, but Asian Americans continued to enjoy the highest percentage yield of all racial groups. And as the Fourth Circuit detailed, Asian American students from historically underrepresented middle schools 'saw a sixfold increase in offers, and the number of low-income Asian American admittees to TJ increased to 51 — from a mere one in 2020.' In short, Thomas Jefferson High School adopted a 'race-neutral' process to pursue a set of goals that included increasing Black and Hispanic representation. This is the precise type of practice the Trump administration denigrates as 'illegal DEI.' Efforts to promote racial diversity do constitute DEI. But they are far from illegal. In fact, Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard — the 2023 decision striking down Harvard University's formal consideration of applicant race — supports most of the DEI policies Trump now targets. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Roberts deemed Harvard's underlying goals as 'worthy' and 'commendable.' Justice Brett Kavanaugh made the point more directly; writing for himself, Kavanaugh noted that 'racial discrimination still occurs and the effects of past racial discrimination still persist' and that 'universities still can, of course, act to undo the effects of past discrimination in many permissible ways that do not involve classification by race.' The actions of the high school square with Kavanaugh's call for policies that attend to race but do not differentiate between individual students on this basis. This should short-circuit the Department of Education's investigation against Fairfax County. But it is unlikely to stall Trump's desire to outlaw integration. The Pacific Legal Foundation, which initiated the lawsuit against Fairfax County and remains a force on the right, wants to revive Goldwater's hostile approach to integration. Consider the following FAQ on Pacific Legal's website: 'schools may use or not use standardized tests, essays, interviews, or auditions, as long as their reasons for using or not using them are not racial.' By this logic, a high school could lawfully eliminate an admissions fee if motivated by public relations concerns, but it would be unlawful to take that same action if done to decrease racial barriers that exclude low-income Black and Hispanic students. Now consider higher education. Per Pacific Legal, Harvard University could eliminate admissions preferences for the children of alumni and wealthy donors if done to appease alumni pressure. But it would be unlawful for Harvard to take the same action if the goal is increasing the number of Asian American students or mitigate unearned racial preferences that flow to wealthy white applicants. The upshot is that affirmative efforts to reduce racial inequality — everything Trump dubs 'illegal DEI' — remain legal and morally just. So, at least for now, integration does not equate to segregation. Jonathan Feingold is an associate professor at Boston University School of Law. He is an expert in affirmative action, antidiscrimination law, education law, and critical race theory. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trump Is Melting Down in Private at ‘Weak' Amy Coney Barrett
President Donald Trump has privately lashed out at conservative Supreme Court justices for not consistently backing his agenda, taking particular aim at his most recent appointee Amy Coney Barrett. One week after Barrett enraged MAGA Republicans by recusing herself from an Oklahoma charter school case, CNN reported that the president has become increasingly frustrated by his 2020 Supreme Court pick, fueled by right-wing allies telling him that she is 'weak'. According to unnamed sources, Trump has been increasingly irked by others on the bench, too, including Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, whom the president also nominated during his first term. But the main target was reportedly Barrett amid concerns from allies that her rulings have not been consistent with how she presented herself before she was appointed to her lifetime job on the nation's highest court. Tensions in MAGA world over Barrett have been simmering for months. In March, for example, Barrett voted to reject Trump's attempt to freeze nearly $2 billion in foreign aid, prompting legal commentator Mike Davis to declare on Steve Bannon's podcast: 'She's a rattled law professor with her head up her ass.' Earlier in January, Barrett sided with Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, a fellow conservative, and the liberal justices of the court to allow Trump to be sentenced in his so-called 'hush money' trial. Trump had been convicted in May after a jury in New York unanimously found him guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business records to cover up a sex scandal with porn star Stormy Daniels. But last month's decision to recuse herself in the Oklahoma case particularly enraged those in Trump's circle, given the administration had backed the school. In a statement to the Daily Beast, spokesman Harrison Fields said: 'President Trump will always stand with the U.S. Supreme Court, unlike the Democrat Party, which, if given the opportunity, would pack the court, ultimately undermining its integrity. 'The President may disagree with the Court and some of its rulings, but he will always respect its foundational role,' he said. Barrett was nominated by Trump in 2020, but had become a darling of religious conservatives during her earlier confirmation hearings to sit on the Seventh Circuit. Appointed to the Supreme Court at the age of 48, she was the youngest woman justice to sit on the bench and also happened to be the first mother of school-aged children to serve there. While Barrett has joined conservatives on major rulings to move US law to the right, including on abortion and affirmative action, MAGA acolytes have become increasingly angered by her more centrist rulings, with some even calling her 'evil' and a 'DEI' hire. 'Amy Coney Barrett was a DEI appointee,' far-right influencer, Laura Loomer wrote on X in March. The post also featured a photo of Barrett's family, which includes two children adopted from Haiti, who are Black. Her supporters, however, have fought back. 'Barrett is a terrific justice, and, in most cases, those who are criticizing her are forgetting the proper role of the judiciary,' wrote National Review senior editor Charles C.W. Cooke in a recent column titled 'In defense of Justice Amy Coney Barrett.'