Nebraska judges again likely to receive pay raises, consistent since 2005
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


CBS News
28 minutes ago
- CBS News
How new laws are changing Colorado school policies on religion, library materials
Books covering themes like race, sexual orientation, gender identity, and political or religious beliefs are staying on library shelves in Boulder County but your student may not have to read them. The night before the first bell of the school year rings for Boulder Valley School District, the school board approved a policy change that allows students and parents to opt out of curriculum covering controversial themes with no questions asked. However, the new policies also allow books and materials to stay accessible for all students. This shift in policy follows a June Supreme Court ruling requiring schools to provide parents the option to excuse their child from class when course material conflicts with religious beliefs. At the center of that case was the Montgomery County school system in Maryland. Parents sued the school board seeking to opt their elementary school kids out of class when reading material with LGBTQ characters. Parents argued that the fact they couldn't opt their kids out violated the First Amendment, and in a 6-to-3 decision, the justices agreed. That ruling is now impacting schools nationwide. Boulder County is one of the state's first school districts to adopt new policies after the Supreme Court ruling, but they didn't exclusively include a new opt-out option for parents. The new policies mean parents have more of a say in what their child learns about in class, but they also protect those resources in the library for other students to use. In 2020, B.J. and Brecken Jones sued the Boulder Valley School District in Colorado with a similar claim as the June ruling about a desire to opt their child out of lessons. Today, Jones celebrates the new opt-out policy but sent a statement reacting to the policies around general material access in part, "BVSD appears to be delegating more educational content decisions to activist "'educators' and away from parents, families, and the community." Meanwhile, some teachers tell CBS Colorado they're worried these policies are forcing them to think more like a lawyer than an educator, and worry about possible added work if consistent replacement assignments are needed for students who opt out. Tuesday's policies are some of the first changes since the 1980s. On Tuesday, the school board explained they're trying to thread the needle between following federal decisions and supporting access to materials that discuss things like gender, race, and sexuality. "I think for us it's important for our educators that they know that they're supported, and they know clearly what the rights of parents are as determined by the Supreme Court," BVSD Superintendent Rob Anderson said. The new BVSD policies also mean librarians will have more say about what goes on their shelves. These changes separate what's taught in the classroom and can be opted out of by parents from what's available to read at the library. Rae Ciciora is the District Library Coordinator for BVSD, and she explained that, in following the new Colorado law, book challenges or complaints about what's on the shelf must also now come from someone with a direct connection to a school or neighborhood rather than anyone with a concern. "It's limited to a parent or a community member in that school neighborhood, so that that group from Virginia can't come in and complain about our books and our libraries, only our students, families, and communities can complain about a book," Ciciora said. In the 2025 regular session, Senate Bill 25-063 became law and now requires many of these protections, alongside BVSD's policy affirming a librarian's choice in content. "I don't feel as exposed as I did last year with all of the administration that's you know, all the changes that are happening with the administration, and some of the movements that have come from out of state requesting, 'What titles are you having in your school libraries? We think we might want to pull some of those titles,'" Ciciora said, "This is giving me a sense of we are actually protected. Not just I know they've got my back, but the policy has our back." Board members expect to keep talking about these policies and get feedback from the public as the year continues. Meanwhile, some teachers tell CBS Colorado they hope it won't have too much of an impact on their day-to-day lessons. Superintendent Dr. Anderson also says that while BVSD may be one of the first to make these changes, he expects other schools to follow as the year begins. Senate Bill 25-063 also mandates that schools have written policies about library resources by Sept. 1.


NBC News
an hour ago
- NBC News
U.S. appeals court upholds Arkansas law banning youth transgender care
A federal appeals court on Tuesday upheld an Arkansas law barring doctors from providing gender-affirming care including puberty blockers, hormones and surgery to transgender minors. The 8-2 decision by the St. Louis-based 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturns a lower court ruling. It also follows the U.S. Supreme Court's June ruling holding that Tennessee's similar ban did not discriminate based on sex or transgender status. Citing that ruling, the 8th Circuit's majority agreed with Arkansas' Republican attorney general that the law did not violate transgender minors' equal protection rights under the U.S. Constitution. The 8th Circuit also went further than the Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, by deciding an unresolved legal issue of whether such bans violate parents' rights to provide appropriate medical care for their children. Lawyers for the plaintiffs — a group of minors, parents and health care professionals — argued the Arkansas law violated parents' due process rights under the U.S. Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment. But U.S. Circuit Judge Duane Benton, writing for the majority, cited a lack of historical support for the argument that parents have a right to obtain medical treatment for their children that a state legislature deems inappropriate. 'This court finds no such right in this Nation's history and tradition,' Benton wrote in an opinion joined by seven fellow appointees of Republican presidents. U.S. Circuit Judge Jane Kelly, an appointee of Democratic former President Barack Obama, dissented along with another judge, citing a 'startling lack of evidence connecting Arkansas' ban on gender-affirming care with its purported goal of protecting children.' 'This is a tragically unjust result for transgender Arkansans, their doctors and their families,' said Holly Dickson, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas, which represented the plaintiffs. The decision overturns a ruling by a lower-court judge in 2023 who had declared the law unconstitutional after previously blocking it from taking effect in 2021. That year, Arkansas became the first U.S. state to ban gender-affirming care for minors. The Republican-led legislature passed the ban over the veto of then-Governor Asa Hutchinson, also a Republican. Since then, a slew of other Republican-led states have passed similar laws. Such policies are now in place in 25 states. The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last week upheld Oklahoma's own ban, citing the Supreme Court's ruling.


NBC News
2 hours ago
- NBC News
Transgender Marine speaks out against Trump's ban on trans servicemembers
On Jan. 27, Trump announced an executive order titled 'Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness.' It states that, 'expressing a false 'gender identity' divergent from an individual's sex cannot satisfy the rigorous standards necessary for military service.' The order then continues to say, 'beyond the hormonal and surgical medical interventions involved, adoption of a gender identity inconsistent with an individual's sex conflicts with a soldier's commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle, even in one's personal life.' On May 6, after a court challenge, the Supreme Court granted the Trump Administration the ability to move forward with the order. That same day, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, delivered a keynote speech at Special Operations Forces Week 2025, that was clipped and posted in a public video on the verified X account for DOD Rapid Response, and said, 'We are leaving wokeness and weakness behind. No more pronouns. No more climate-change obsession. No more emergency vaccine mandates. No more dudes in dresses.' The following week, on May 15, a memo was sent to every branch of the military from the U.S. Department of Defense that stated that all transgender personnel would need to self-identify and begin a voluntary leave process by Jun. 6 for active duty and Jul. 7 for those in the reserves. A transcript posted on the DOD's website on the same day, that cited a 'Senior Defense Official' without listing their name, explained that those who chose to leave would be compensated based on 'rank as well as time in service.' The DOD transcript explained further, that all transgender personnel who leave because of this will receive some benefits, but that it is greater for those who start the process on their own accord. 'So, for involuntary category separation, an E-5 with 10 years of service, we estimate that that involuntary separation payment would be just under $51,000. For an O-3 with seven years in service that involuntary separation pay would be approximately $62,000. The way the voluntary separation pay is calculated is a multiple of two from the involuntary, so that E-5 with 10 years would be approximately $101,000 and the O-3 with seven years in service would be approximately $125,000,' the transcript said. On Aug. 7, however, it was reported by NBC News that the Air Force is denying early retirement to all transgender service members with between 15 and 18 years of military service, opting instead to force them out with no retirement benefits, according to a memo seen by Reuters. The DOD transcript also explained that, 'for those that elect not to voluntarily participate, the primary means of identification for the involuntary process will be through medical readiness programs. Individual medical readiness programs are a long-standing program and policy in the department. They are not new. They are not tied specifically to the implementation of this policy.' Savoie told NBC San Diego they chose to stay, and not begin that voluntary separation process, as an act of resistance. 'There's a lot of reasons to that,' Savoie said. 'I don't have dependents that are specifically banking on me having a paycheck. I know you're probably familiar with the buyout option that they gave, so double what your normal separation pay would be. For me, to be transparent with you, that was about $100,000, so a significant chunk of income. That's about a year's worth of income for me; it wasn't worth it.' 'I didn't commission to make the easy choice, and in this position, when you're faced with choices like these, are you going to make them on principle or are you going to make them on what the easy way out is. That's not everyone's scenario, but it is for me,' Savoie continued. 'I should caveat and say anyone who's taking this right now is under duress. Like it is a forced thing and, again, it does not come without risk. We don't know what they're going to do to us right now.' Savoie said they do have concerns for the future, including which separation code will be used for them if they are forced to leave the Marines and how that could impact their future employment opportunities. NBC San Diego reached out to Savoie's command and the public affairs team for the USMC Manpower and Reserve Affairs office for more information on their status, as well as the status of other transgender servicemembers. They forwarded the request to the Pentagon, where the on-duty public affairs officer referred NBC San Diego to the department's May 15 transcript. When it comes to how many servicemembers, including Savoie, may be impacted by Trump's executive order, in that transcript, the unnamed senior defense official said, 'the Department has cited a previous study that estimated approximately 4,200 service members with gender dysphoria. I have not seen a more recent study the department is relying on. So, that would be the most recent study that we would rely on. And of course, that may not be current as of today because service members are entering and departing service in the normal course of events all the time.' Savoie echoed that, saying 'there's not great numbers on how many transgender people are in the military." "From the communities that I am a part of and my experience working and connecting with other trans service members, I would guesstimate there's maybe seven or eight transgender officers in the Marine Corps," they said. "Some of those I know are not out right now and others, they fly under the radar. Others are taking the retirement and just kind of want to gracefully exit because they've already done their part and they've had to fight their fights under the first ban, and they're tired.' If it were up to Savoie — who has continues to show up for work each day, unsure of what comes next — they said they would serve until their EAS, or end of active service, in 2028.