Twenty-Seventh Amendment — Congressional Pay Restrictions

The Twenty-Seventh Amendment provides: "No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened." This amendment prevents Congress from giving itself an immediate pay raise — any change to congressional compensation cannot take effect until after the next election for the House of Representatives, ensuring that voters have the opportunity to hold members accountable for their pay decisions before those decisions take effect. The amendment has one of the most remarkable ratification stories in American history: it was originally proposed by James Madison in 1789 as part of the original Bill of Rights (it was one of twelve proposed amendments, of which ten were ratified as the Bill of Rights). It failed to receive enough state ratifications in the 1790s and sat dormant for nearly two centuries — until a University of Texas undergraduate, Gregory Watson, wrote a 1982 term paper arguing the amendment could still be ratified (his professor gave him a C). Watson launched a one-man ratification campaign, and state after state ratified the long-forgotten amendment. It was certified as ratified on May 7, 1992 — 202 years, 7 months, and 12 days after it was proposed, making it the amendment with the longest ratification period in history. See Congressional Operations for how Congress sets its own rules, Federal Pay System (GS Scale) for the parallel federal employee compensation framework, and STOCK Act for related congressional ethics restrictions.

Current Law (2026)

Legal Authority

• U.S. Constitution, Amend. XXVII — "No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened"
• 2 U.S.C. § 4501 — Congressional pay and automatic COLA adjustment mechanism
• Ethics Reform Act of 1989 — Established the automatic COLA system for congressional pay, designed to avoid politically difficult direct votes on pay raises

Implementing Regulations

This is a constitutional provision with no implementing regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations. Key judicial doctrine includes:

• No Supreme Court ruling — As of 2026, the Supreme Court has never decided a case on the merits of the Twenty-Seventh Amendment. The amendment's relatively narrow scope and the political-question doctrine have kept challenges from reaching the Court.
• Boehner v. Anderson (D.C. Circuit, 1994) — House members challenged the congressional pay system, arguing that the Ethics Reform Act of 1989's automatic COLA mechanism violated the Twenty-Seventh Amendment. The D.C. Circuit dismissed on political question grounds, declining to adjudicate an internal congressional compensation dispute.
• Schaffer v. Clinton (D.C. Circuit, 2001) — A plaintiff challenged the automatic cost-of-living adjustments to congressional pay, arguing they violated the "intervening election" requirement because they take effect without a new vote. The D.C. Circuit dismissed for lack of standing — the plaintiff had not demonstrated a sufficient personal injury from congressional pay adjustments.
• Key interpretive question — automatic COLAs: Whether automatic annual COLAs under the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 violate the amendment is the central unresolved legal question. The prevailing view (endorsed by the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel in 1992 and the courts that have addressed it) is that automatic COLAs do not violate the amendment because: (1) Congress authorized the adjustment mechanism in a prior Congress, (2) an intervening election has already occurred since that original authorization, and (3) each annual adjustment is not itself a new "law varying the compensation." In practice the question has been moot since 2009, as Congress has blocked the automatic COLA every year.

How It Works

The amendment's mechanism is simple: Congress can vote to change its own pay, but the change doesn't take effect until after the next House election. House elections occur every two years, so any pay change faces a maximum two-year delay — voters can respond by removing members who voted for an increase before it takes effect. If voters return the same members, the increase takes effect with democratic validation. In 1989, Congress tried to work around the political pain of direct pay votes by establishing an automatic cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) system tied to the Employment Cost Index. The DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel opined in 1992 that automatic COLAs don't violate the amendment because Congress authorized the mechanism in a prior session with an intervening election already having occurred. In practice, the issue is moot: Congress has voted to block its automatic COLA every year since 2009, keeping pay frozen at $174,000.

The amendment's own ratification raised the constitutional question of whether there's a time limit on ratifying proposed amendments without explicit deadlines. Madison proposed what became the Twenty-Seventh Amendment in 1789 alongside the Bill of Rights; it sat dormant until University of Texas student Gregory Watson researched it in 1982 and launched a grassroots ratification campaign. Michigan became the 38th state to ratify in 1992 — 202 years after the original proposal — and the Archivist of the United States certified ratification on May 7, 1992. The amendment's unusual history established that proposed amendments without explicit deadlines can be ratified at any time, a principle directly relevant to the ongoing debate over the Equal Rights Amendment. Congressional pay has been frozen at $174,000 since 2009 — one of the longest freezes in congressional history and roughly a 30% real pay cut adjusted for inflation. Advocates for raising it argue the freeze discourages qualified candidates without independent wealth and makes members more dependent on outside income sources; opponents note $174,000 is well above the national median and that voting for a pay raise is politically toxic regardless of the merits.

How It Affects You

If you're a voter concerned about congressional compensation and accountability: The Twenty-Seventh Amendment (ratified 1992) gives you a structural democratic check on pay increases: any law changing congressional compensation "shall take no effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened" (U.S. Const. amend. XXVII). This means members who vote themselves a raise must face voters before pocketing it — the intervening House election creates accountability. In practice, congressional pay has been frozen at $174,000 since 2009 — members have voluntarily blocked the automatic Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) mechanism established under 2 U.S.C. § 4501 every year for over 15 years, largely to avoid the political optics of appearing to take a raise while voters face economic hardship. Members are also entitled to FEHB health insurance, the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) pension after 5 years of service, official travel, and office staff — the total compensation package is substantially more than the base salary. If you're tracking whether your representative voted on pay amendments: Congress typically blocks the COLA through the annual Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, so votes on those bills are the relevant record.

If you're a current or prospective member of Congress: The constitutional mechanics of the Twenty-Seventh Amendment mean you can technically vote for a pay increase — but it won't take effect until after your next election. The practical reality: no significant pay raise has passed since the COLA mechanism was established because the political cost of being on record as supporting a pay increase is perceived as higher than the salary benefit. The current $174,000 base salary (last raised in 2009) has lost substantial real purchasing power to inflation — in 2024 dollars, $174,000 in 2009 is worth about $117,000 in 2009 dollars. Proponents of a pay increase argue that the salary freeze relative to Washington, D.C. living costs has made it harder for middle-class Americans without independent wealth to serve effectively; opponents argue the salary is generous compared to most constituents' earnings. Leadership positions command higher salaries: Speaker of the House earns $223,500; Majority/Minority Leaders earn $193,400.

If you're studying constitutional history or the amendment ratification process: The Twenty-Seventh Amendment's ratification story is one of the most unusual in U.S. history. James Madison proposed it as part of the original Bill of Rights package in 1789 — but only six states ratified it before interest faded. It sat dormant for 203 years. In 1982, University of Texas student Gregory Watson discovered the unratified amendment, wrote a paper arguing it was still technically pending (receiving a C grade), and launched a one-man campaign to revive ratification. By 1992, enough states had ratified that the Archivist of the United States certified it as part of the Constitution — despite objections that the multi-century gap violated implicit time limits on ratification. The constitutional validity of the 27th Amendment has been questioned by some scholars (the argument that ratification must be quasi-contemporaneous), but it has never been successfully challenged in court and is accepted as valid law.

If you're a policy researcher, congressional budget analyst, or good-government advocate: The frozen congressional salary — now nearly 15 years stagnant — is itself a governance concern distinct from the pay optics debate. When salaries are below market for experienced attorneys, economists, and technical experts, it affects who can realistically run for and serve in Congress. CRS reports document that the current $174,000 base, while above median household income, is lower than junior associates at major Washington law firms and well below senior staff at large nonprofit organizations. The broader context: the 27th Amendment was originally driven by anti-corruption sentiment — ensuring the public could punish Congress for self-interested pay increases. Whether it has meaningfully constrained congressional pay or simply created political theater around an issue (congressional pay is ~0.002% of federal spending) that distracts from substantive governance questions is a matter of ongoing democratic debate.

State Variations

The Twenty-Seventh Amendment applies only to Congress:

• State legislatures set their own compensation — methods vary enormously (citizen commissions, constitutional provisions, statutory formulas)
• Some states pay legislators under $20,000/year (New Hampshire legislators earn $100/year); others pay over $100,000 (California)
• Many states have their own versions of the intervening-election requirement for legislative pay changes
• The political dynamics of legislative pay are similar at every level — voting for a raise is universally unpopular

Pending Legislation

Proposals to increase congressional pay or reform the COLA mechanism are periodically introduced but rarely advance. The political cost of voting for a pay raise remains prohibitive.

Recent Developments

Congressional pay has remained frozen at $174,000 since 2009 — the longest freeze in modern history. Each year, Congress includes language in appropriations bills blocking the automatic COLA. Some members and advocacy groups have called for pay reform, arguing that stagnant pay creates governance problems (members spending excessive time fundraising, barriers to entry for non-wealthy candidates, staff turnover driven by low salaries throughout Congress). The Twenty-Seventh Amendment's ratification history continues to be relevant to the ERA debate — the question of whether the Equal Rights Amendment can still be ratified despite an expired deadline is informed by the Twenty-Seventh Amendment's successful 202-year ratification.