{"argument_date":"2001-02-20T00:00:00Z","arguments":[{"argument_date":"2001-02-20T00:00:00Z","heading":"What happened at the argument","official_detail_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcript/2000","official_transcript_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1978.pdf","paragraphs":["Wolfson argued judges share costs with most Americans. He said this reflects a universal social insurance benefit.","Wolfson noted Congress balanced several objectives in 1984. He emphasized the shared nature of the program.","Rosenthal argued the Court already decided liability issues. He suggested the Court need not revisit those points now.","Rosenthal framed the core question as a tax issue. He asked if a tax can reduce judicial compensation."],"reargument":false,"sequence":1,"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 31-7","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1978.pdf","page_label":"file page 24, lines 31-7"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-25","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1978.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 15-25"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1978.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 5-13"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 47, lines 31-47","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1978.pdf","page_label":"file page 47, lines 31-47"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 23-27","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1978.pdf","page_label":"file page 51, lines 23-27"}]}],"caption":"United States v. Hatter","case_history":[{"changed_at":"2026-08-29T20:06:33.353905Z","explanation":"An official oral-argument transcript was verified.","status":"argued"},{"changed_at":"2026-08-29T20:06:33.380517Z","explanation":"An official oral-argument transcript was verified.","status":"argued"}],"case_status":"argued","dek":"Federal judges argue Social Security taxes violate salary protections. The government says these taxes are standard insurance costs.","dek_sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 31-7","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1978.pdf","page_label":"file page 24, lines 31-7"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-25","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1978.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 15-25"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 47, lines 31-47","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1978.pdf","page_label":"file page 47, lines 31-47"}],"dispositions":[],"latest_court_document_date":"2001-02-20T00:00:00Z","maturity":"official_transcript","official_detail_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcript/2000","official_disposition_urls":[],"official_docket_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/99-1978.html","primary_docket":"99-1978","revisions":[{"correction_note":"Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.","created_at":"2026-08-31T18:07:26.494534Z","maturity":"official_transcript","revision_number":1},{"correction_note":"Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.","created_at":"2026-09-05T03:22:24Z","maturity":"official_transcript","revision_number":2}],"schema_version":"1.1","sections":[{"heading":"What this case is about","paragraphs":["This case tests whether federal judges can pay Social Security taxes. The Constitution protects judicial salaries from reduction. The government argues these taxes are not a pay cut. Judges argue they are a direct financial loss."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 31-7","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1978.pdf","page_label":"file page 24, lines 31-7"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-25","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1978.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 15-25"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 47, lines 31-47","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1978.pdf","page_label":"file page 47, lines 31-47"}]},{"heading":"How the case got here","paragraphs":["The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on February 20, 2001."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1978.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 5-13"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 23-27","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1978.pdf","page_label":"file page 51, lines 23-27"}]},{"heading":"What each side wants","paragraphs":["Judges want the Court to strike down the tax. They argue it illegally reduces their protected salaries.","The government wants the Court to uphold the tax. It argues the tax is a valid social insurance cost."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 31-7","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1978.pdf","page_label":"file page 24, lines 31-7"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-25","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1978.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 15-25"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 47, lines 31-47","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1978.pdf","page_label":"file page 47, lines 31-47"}]},{"heading":"What each side says","paragraphs":["Judges claim the tax acts as a direct diminution of their compensation. They argue this violates constitutional salary protections.","The government claims the tax is a shared cost of a universal program. It argues this does not count as a salary reduction."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 31-7","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1978.pdf","page_label":"file page 24, lines 31-7"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-25","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1978.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 15-25"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 47, lines 31-47","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1978.pdf","page_label":"file page 47, lines 31-47"}]},{"heading":"What the justices asked","paragraphs":["Does a tax on judges count as a reduction in their pay? The Court must define the scope of salary protections."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 23-27","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1978.pdf","page_label":"file page 51, lines 23-27"}]},{"heading":"Why it matters","paragraphs":["This case defines the financial independence of federal judges. It clarifies whether judges must pay for social insurance. The outcome shapes the relationship between the judiciary and federal funding."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 31-7","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1978.pdf","page_label":"file page 24, lines 31-7"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-25","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1978.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 15-25"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 47, lines 31-47","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1978.pdf","page_label":"file page 47, lines 31-47"}]},{"heading":"What happens next","paragraphs":["This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1978.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 5-13"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 23-27","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1978.pdf","page_label":"file page 51, lines 23-27"}]}],"slug":"2000-99-1978-united-states-v-hatter","term":"2000","title":"Can Social Security taxes reduce federal judges' pay?","title_sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 31-7","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1978.pdf","page_label":"file page 24, lines 31-7"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-25","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1978.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 15-25"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 47, lines 31-47","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1978.pdf","page_label":"file page 47, lines 31-47"}],"topics":[],"undated_disposition_date_fallback":null,"updated_at":"2026-09-05T03:22:24Z"}