New Jersey's Supreme Court has ruled that judges do not have to contribute more to their pensions and health care benefits.

The three-to-two decision came in challenge to a law passed last year that requires increased contributions by hundreds of thousands of state workers.

The court's majority ruled it's an employer-generated reduction in the take home pay of judges that violates a constitutional provision preventing their salaries from being cut.
 

Frank Askin is director of the Constitutional Litigation Clinic at Rutgers.  He says it was a tough decision for the Justices.
 

"What is so striking about this case is the fact that the three judges in the majority none of them are subject to reappointment, and the two dissenting justices are both subject to reappointment which says something very significant about judicial tenure."

Senate President Steve Sweeney expects the legislature will move quickly on a constitutional amendment that would permit the higher contributions.

"I fought for the last two and half years to protect the independence of the courts, but I can't stand by while every other employee of the state is paying more and the judges who I have a great deal of respect for pay less. It's not fair."

Republican Assemblywoman Amy Handlin also wants that constitutional amendment.
 

"It's ultimately the determination of the people as to whether or not they believe judges are equal to all other public workers in New Jersey, that judges don't exist on some Mount Olympus, that judges should be subject to the same law as everyone else."

Handlin says the judicial pension system will be in financial trouble if judges don't contribute more.