Johnson V Board of Control

Johnson v Board of Control

In the case of Johnson v Board of Control 740 So. 2D 999 (1999), the appellant was a state circuit judge who had contributed in the judicial retirement system for nearly twenty years. When she was appointed a United States district judge, she asked for her retirement benefits from the state. The retirement board denied her claim for benefits, and Johnson challenged the denial. The court reversed the ruling of appellee retirement board denying appellant judge her state retirement benefits for the reason that she would not be exercising any power of the state as an inactive, retired state judge. The court explained that appellant had met the eligibility requirements for retirement (Code of Ala. § 12-18-6 (2011)) and she would not lose the right to her state benefits upon her federal appointment. As a retired state judge, appellant was an inactive member of the judiciary. She would not be holding an office of profit or exercising any power of the state. Appellant had taken the oath of a retired judge on inactive status of the State of Alabama and had been sworn in as a United States district judge. Her appointment to the federal bench was lifetime; subject only to removal by impeachment. Suspension of her retirement benefits by appellee divested her of an earned property right; in violation of fourteenth amendment of the Constitution (Amendment XIV, n.d.).

The strengths of Judge Johnson's case included the fact that she had work the required number of years in order to qualify for retirement benefits under the Alabama law. If she had work the required amount of time to quality for the retirement benefits then that would have been a different story, but she had met all the requirements and thus should have been allowed to collect what was due to her. Another strength of her case can be seen in the fact that the constitutional prohibition against providing pensions for state officials in Alabama led to legislation over the years creating supernumerary positions for certain state officials who met the statutory requirements for such positions. These statutes creating supernumerary positions were enacted to compensate certain public officials who had served the state for a number of years, as prescribed by statute and who had reached a certain age, also prescribed by statute, provided that the official entering upon the supernumerary office performed certain duties prescribed by the legislature (James v. Thompson, 1981)

The weaknesses to Judge Johnson's case included the fact that there was a law on the books by constitutional stipulation that has in the past denied the legislature the power to provide for retirement benefits for state officers, including, by implication, judges (Alabama Const. Art. IV, Sec. 98, 2011). Another weakness is that of the fact that even though she was officially retired from the state she was still working at the federal level. It is possible that this could be construed as double dipping, since technically she would be getting paid from both systems.